Article

Ms. A, age 45, is hospitalized for abdominal pain. She is noted to have hiccups, the onset of which she reports was >1 month ago and did not have a clear precipitant. Abdominal and head imaging return no acute findings, and data from a serum electrolyte test, hepatic function test, and thyroid function test are within normal limits. The medical team notices that Ms. A’s speech is pressured, she hardly sleeps, and she appears animated, full of ideas and energy.

Ms. A has a history of bipolar I disorder, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hypothyroidism. Her present medications include hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/d; levothyroxine 25 mcg/d; omeprazole 20 mg/d; and lovastatin 20 mg/d. She states that she was remotely treated for bipolar disorder, but she was cured by a shamanic healer, and therefore no longer needs treatment.

Approximately 35% of adults in the United States age 60 to 79 reported taking ≥5 prescription medications in 2016, compared to 15% of adults age 40 to 59.¹ In a study of 372 patients with advanced, life-limiting illness, Schenker et al² found that those who took multiple medications (mean: 11.6 medications) had a lower quality of life and worse symptoms. Optimizing medications to patients’ specific needs and diagnoses in order to reduce pill burden can be a favorable intervention. In addition, some patients—approximately 30% of those with schizophrenia and 20% of those with bipolar disorder—may not have insight into their mental illness as they do with their medical conditions, and may be more accepting of treatment for the latter.³ Dual-indication prescribing may be a useful way to decrease polypharmacy, reduce potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs), increase patient acceptance and adherence, and improve a patient’s overall health.

Continue on for: Multiple uses for antidepressants and antipsychotics...

One of the first medications discovered to have antidepressant effects was iproniazid, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) initially used to treat tuberculosis.⁴ Since then, numerous classes of antidepressant medications have been developed that capitalize on monoamine reuptake through several different mechanisms of action. These drugs can be grouped into subclasses that include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, MAOIs, and others. True to their roots in iproniazid, these medications can have a myriad of effects not limited to mental health and can therefore be beneficial for a variety of comorbid conditions.

As was the case with antidepressants, the first medication approved in the antipsychotic class, chlorpromazine, was serendipitously discovered to treat psychosis and agitation after being approved and used to treat presurgical apprehension.⁵ The term “antipsychotic” is almost a misnomer given these agents’ broad pharmacology profiles and impact on various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and many other mental conditions. First-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were the first to enter the market; they work primarily by blocking dopamine-2 (D2) receptors. Second-generation antipsychotics have less movement-based adverse effects than FGAs by having higher affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A receptors than for D2 receptors. However, they tend to carry a higher risk for weight gain and metabolic syndrome.

Antidepressants and antipsychotics are widely utilized in psychiatry. Many have been found to have additional uses beyond their original FDA-approved indication and can therefore be beneficial for a variety of comorbid conditions.

One limitation of using psychiatric medications for nonpsychiatric indications is that different doses of antidepressants and antipsychotics are typically targeted for different indications based on receptor binding affinity. A common example of this is trazodone, where doses below 100 mg are used as needed for insomnia, but higher doses ranging from 200 to 600 mg/d are used for depression. Another important consideration is DDIs. For example, the possibility of adding an agent such as fluoxetine to a complex pain regimen for fibromyalgia could impact the clearance of other agents that are cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 substrates due to fluoxetine’s potent inhibition of the enzyme.^6,7 Table 1^6-51, Table 2^52-68, Table 3^69-107, and Table 4^108-123 provide information on select antidepressants, while Table 5^124-140 and Table 6^141-171 provide information on select antipsychotics. Each table lists psychiatric and nonpsychiatric indications for the respective medications, including both FDA-approved (where applicable) and common off-label uses. Most of the indications listed are for adult use only, unless otherwise noted.

Continue on to: Case Continued...

CASE CONTINUED

After reviewing Ms. A’s medical history, the treatment team initiates chlorpromazine, 25 mg 3 times a day, for intractable hiccups, and increases the dosage to 50 mg 3 times a day after 3 days. Chlorpromazine is FDA-approved for treating bipolar mania, and also for treating intractable hiccups. Shortly thereafter, Ms. A’s hiccups subside, she sleeps for longer periods, and her manic symptoms resolve.

Ms. A, age 45, is hospitalized for abdominal pain. She is noted to have hiccups, the onset of which she reports was >1 month ago and did not have a clear precipitant. Abdominal and head imaging return no acute findings, and data from a serum electrolyte test, hepatic function test, and thyroid function test are within normal limits. The medical team notices that Ms. A’s speech is pressured, she hardly sleeps, and she appears animated, full of ideas and energy.

Ms. A has a history of bipolar I disorder, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hypothyroidism. Her present medications include hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/d; levothyroxine 25 mcg/d; omeprazole 20 mg/d; and lovastatin 20 mg/d. She states that she was remotely treated for bipolar disorder, but she was cured by a shamanic healer, and therefore no longer needs treatment.

Approximately 35% of adults in the United States age 60 to 79 reported taking ≥5 prescription medications in 2016, compared to 15% of adults age 40 to 59.¹ In a study of 372 patients with advanced, life-limiting illness, Schenker et al² found that those who took multiple medications (mean: 11.6 medications) had a lower quality of life and worse symptoms. Optimizing medications to patients’ specific needs and diagnoses in order to reduce pill burden can be a favorable intervention. In addition, some patients—approximately 30% of those with schizophrenia and 20% of those with bipolar disorder—may not have insight into their mental illness as they do with their medical conditions, and may be more accepting of treatment for the latter.³ Dual-indication prescribing may be a useful way to decrease polypharmacy, reduce potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs), increase patient acceptance and adherence, and improve a patient’s overall health.

Continue on for: Multiple uses for antidepressants and antipsychotics...

One of the first medications discovered to have antidepressant effects was iproniazid, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) initially used to treat tuberculosis.⁴ Since then, numerous classes of antidepressant medications have been developed that capitalize on monoamine reuptake through several different mechanisms of action. These drugs can be grouped into subclasses that include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, MAOIs, and others. True to their roots in iproniazid, these medications can have a myriad of effects not limited to mental health and can therefore be beneficial for a variety of comorbid conditions.

As was the case with antidepressants, the first medication approved in the antipsychotic class, chlorpromazine, was serendipitously discovered to treat psychosis and agitation after being approved and used to treat presurgical apprehension.⁵ The term “antipsychotic” is almost a misnomer given these agents’ broad pharmacology profiles and impact on various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and many other mental conditions. First-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were the first to enter the market; they work primarily by blocking dopamine-2 (D2) receptors. Second-generation antipsychotics have less movement-based adverse effects than FGAs by having higher affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A receptors than for D2 receptors. However, they tend to carry a higher risk for weight gain and metabolic syndrome.

Antidepressants and antipsychotics are widely utilized in psychiatry. Many have been found to have additional uses beyond their original FDA-approved indication and can therefore be beneficial for a variety of comorbid conditions.

One limitation of using psychiatric medications for nonpsychiatric indications is that different doses of antidepressants and antipsychotics are typically targeted for different indications based on receptor binding affinity. A common example of this is trazodone, where doses below 100 mg are used as needed for insomnia, but higher doses ranging from 200 to 600 mg/d are used for depression. Another important consideration is DDIs. For example, the possibility of adding an agent such as fluoxetine to a complex pain regimen for fibromyalgia could impact the clearance of other agents that are cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 substrates due to fluoxetine’s potent inhibition of the enzyme.^6,7 Table 1^6-51, Table 2^52-68, Table 3^69-107, and Table 4^108-123 provide information on select antidepressants, while Table 5^124-140 and Table 6^141-171 provide information on select antipsychotics. Each table lists psychiatric and nonpsychiatric indications for the respective medications, including both FDA-approved (where applicable) and common off-label uses. Most of the indications listed are for adult use only, unless otherwise noted.

Continue on to: Case Continued...

CASE CONTINUED

After reviewing Ms. A’s medical history, the treatment team initiates chlorpromazine, 25 mg 3 times a day, for intractable hiccups, and increases the dosage to 50 mg 3 times a day after 3 days. Chlorpromazine is FDA-approved for treating bipolar mania, and also for treating intractable hiccups. Shortly thereafter, Ms. A’s hiccups subside, she sleeps for longer periods, and her manic symptoms resolve.

Ms. A, age 45, is hospitalized for abdominal pain. She is noted to have hiccups, the onset of which she reports was >1 month ago and did not have a clear precipitant. Abdominal and head imaging return no acute findings, and data from a serum electrolyte test, hepatic function test, and thyroid function test are within normal limits. The medical team notices that Ms. A’s speech is pressured, she hardly sleeps, and she appears animated, full of ideas and energy.

Ms. A has a history of bipolar I disorder, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hypothyroidism. Her present medications include hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/d; levothyroxine 25 mcg/d; omeprazole 20 mg/d; and lovastatin 20 mg/d. She states that she was remotely treated for bipolar disorder, but she was cured by a shamanic healer, and therefore no longer needs treatment.

Approximately 35% of adults in the United States age 60 to 79 reported taking ≥5 prescription medications in 2016, compared to 15% of adults age 40 to 59.¹ In a study of 372 patients with advanced, life-limiting illness, Schenker et al² found that those who took multiple medications (mean: 11.6 medications) had a lower quality of life and worse symptoms. Optimizing medications to patients’ specific needs and diagnoses in order to reduce pill burden can be a favorable intervention. In addition, some patients—approximately 30% of those with schizophrenia and 20% of those with bipolar disorder—may not have insight into their mental illness as they do with their medical conditions, and may be more accepting of treatment for the latter.³ Dual-indication prescribing may be a useful way to decrease polypharmacy, reduce potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs), increase patient acceptance and adherence, and improve a patient’s overall health.

Continue on for: Multiple uses for antidepressants and antipsychotics...

One of the first medications discovered to have antidepressant effects was iproniazid, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) initially used to treat tuberculosis.⁴ Since then, numerous classes of antidepressant medications have been developed that capitalize on monoamine reuptake through several different mechanisms of action. These drugs can be grouped into subclasses that include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, MAOIs, and others. True to their roots in iproniazid, these medications can have a myriad of effects not limited to mental health and can therefore be beneficial for a variety of comorbid conditions.

As was the case with antidepressants, the first medication approved in the antipsychotic class, chlorpromazine, was serendipitously discovered to treat psychosis and agitation after being approved and used to treat presurgical apprehension.⁵ The term “antipsychotic” is almost a misnomer given these agents’ broad pharmacology profiles and impact on various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and many other mental conditions. First-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were the first to enter the market; they work primarily by blocking dopamine-2 (D2) receptors. Second-generation antipsychotics have less movement-based adverse effects than FGAs by having higher affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A receptors than for D2 receptors. However, they tend to carry a higher risk for weight gain and metabolic syndrome.

Antidepressants and antipsychotics are widely utilized in psychiatry. Many have been found to have additional uses beyond their original FDA-approved indication and can therefore be beneficial for a variety of comorbid conditions.

One limitation of using psychiatric medications for nonpsychiatric indications is that different doses of antidepressants and antipsychotics are typically targeted for different indications based on receptor binding affinity. A common example of this is trazodone, where doses below 100 mg are used as needed for insomnia, but higher doses ranging from 200 to 600 mg/d are used for depression. Another important consideration is DDIs. For example, the possibility of adding an agent such as fluoxetine to a complex pain regimen for fibromyalgia could impact the clearance of other agents that are cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 substrates due to fluoxetine’s potent inhibition of the enzyme.^6,7 Table 1^6-51, Table 2^52-68, Table 3^69-107, and Table 4^108-123 provide information on select antidepressants, while Table 5^124-140 and Table 6^141-171 provide information on select antipsychotics. Each table lists psychiatric and nonpsychiatric indications for the respective medications, including both FDA-approved (where applicable) and common off-label uses. Most of the indications listed are for adult use only, unless otherwise noted.

Continue on to: Case Continued...

CASE CONTINUED

After reviewing Ms. A’s medical history, the treatment team initiates chlorpromazine, 25 mg 3 times a day, for intractable hiccups, and increases the dosage to 50 mg 3 times a day after 3 days. Chlorpromazine is FDA-approved for treating bipolar mania, and also for treating intractable hiccups. Shortly thereafter, Ms. A’s hiccups subside, she sleeps for longer periods, and her manic symptoms resolve.

Among patients with bipolar I or II disorder (BD I or II), major depressive episodes represent the predominant mood state when not euthymic, and are disproportionately associated with the functional disability of BD and its suicide risk.¹ Long-term naturalistic studies of weekly mood states in patients with BD I or II found that the proportion of time spent depressed greatly exceeded that spent in a mixed, hypomanic, or manic state during >12 years of follow-up (Figure 1²and Figure 2³). In the 20th century, traditional antidepressants represented the sole option for management of bipolar depression despite concerns of manic switching or lack of efficacy.^4,5 Efficacy concerns were subsequently confirmed by placebo-controlled studies, such as the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) trial, which found limited effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressants for bipolar depression.⁶ Comprehensive reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational studies documented the risk of mood cycling and manic switching, especially in patients with BD I, even if antidepressants were used in the presence of mood-stabilizing medications.^7,8

Several newer antipsychotics have been FDA-approved for treating depressive episodes associated with BD (Table 1). Approval of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in December 2003 for depressive episodes associated with BD I established that mechanisms exist which can effectively treat acute depressive episodes in patients with BD without an inordinate risk of mood instability. Subsequent approval of quetia­pine in October 2006 for depression associated with BD I or II, lurasidone in June 2013, and cariprazine in May 2019 for major depression in BD I greatly expanded the options for management of acute bipolar depression. However, despite the array of molecules available, for certain patients these agents presented tolerability issues such as sedation, weight gain, akathisia, or parkinsonism that could hamper effective treatment.⁹ Safety and efficacy data in bipolar depression for adjunctive use with lithium or divalproex/valproate (VPA) also are lacking for quetiapine, OFC, and cariprazine.^10,11 Moreover, despite the fact that BD II is as prevalent as BD I, and that patients with BD II have comparable rates of comorbidity, chronicity, disability, and suicidality,¹² only quetiapine was approved for acute treatment of depression in patients with BD II. This omission is particularly problematic because the depressive episodes of BD II predominate over the time spent in hypomanic and cycling/mixed states (50.3% for depression vs 3.6% for hypomania/cycling/mixed combined), much more than is seen with BD I (31.9% for depression vs 14.8% for hypomania/cycling/mixed combined).^2,3 The paucity of data for the use of newer antipsychotics in BD II depression presents a problem when patients cannot tolerate or refuse to consider quetiapine. This prevents clinicians from engaging in evidence-based efficacy discussions of other options, even if it is assumed that the tolerability profile for BD II depression patients may be similar to that seen when these agents are used for BD I depression.

Continue to: Table 1...

Lumateperone (Caplyta) is a novel oral antipsychotic initially approved in 2019 for the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia. It was approved in December 2021 for the management of depression associated with BD I or II in adults as monotherapy or when used adjunctively with the mood stabilizers lithium or VPA (Table 2).¹³ Lumateperone possesses certain binding affinities not unlike those in other newer antipsychotics, including high affinity for serotonin 5HT2A receptors (Ki 0.54 nM), low affinity for dopamine D2 receptors (Ki 32 nM), and low affinity for alpha 1-adrenergic receptors (Ki 73 nM), muscarinic and histaminergic receptors (Ki >100 nM for both).^13,14 However, there are some distinguishing features: the ratio of 5HT2A receptor affinity to D2 affinity is 60, greater than that for other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) such as risperidone (12), olanzapine (12.4) or aripiprazole (0.18).¹⁵ At steady state, D2 receptor occupancy remains <40%, and the corresponding rates of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS)/akathisia differed by only 0.4% for lumateperone vs placebo in short-term adult clinical schizophrenia trials,^13,16 by 0.2% for lumateperone vs placebo in the monotherapy BD depression study, and by 1.7% in the adjunctive BD depression study.^13,17,18 Lumateperone also exhibited no clinically significant impact on metabolic measures or serum prolactin during the 4-week schizophrenia trials, with mean weight gain ≤1 kg for the 42 mg dose across all studies.¹⁹ This favorable tolerability profile for endocrine and metabolic adverse effects was also seen in the BD depression studies. Across the 2 BD depression monotherapy trials and the single adjunctive study, the only adverse reactions occurring in ≥5% of lumateperone-treated patients and more than twice the rate of placebo were somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth.¹³ There was also no single adverse reaction leading to discontinuation in the BD depression studies that occurred at a rate >2% in patients treated with lumateperone.¹³

Continue to: Clinical implications...

Clinical implications

The approval of lumateperone for both BD I and BD II depression, and for its use as monotherapy and for adjunctive use with lithium or VPA, satisfies several unmet needs for the management of acute major depressive episodes in patients with BD. Clinicians now have both safety and tolerability data to present to their bipolar spectrum patients regardless of subtype, and regardless of whether the patient requires mood stabilizer therapy. The tolerability advantages for lumateperone seen in schizophrenia trials were replicated in a diagnostic group that is very sensitive to D2-related adverse effects, and for whom any signal of clinically significant weight gain or sedation often represents an insuperable barrier to patient acceptance.²³

Efficacy in adults with BD I or II depression.

The efficacy of lumateperone for major depressive episodes has been established in 2 pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in BD I or II patients: 1 monotherapy study,¹⁷ and 1 study when used adjunctively to lithium or VPA.¹⁸ The first study was a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy trial (study 404) in which 377 patients age 18 to 75 with BD I or BD II experiencing a major depressive episode were randomized in a 1:1 manner to lumateperone 42 mg/d or placebo given once daily in the evening. Symptom entry criteria included a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20, and scores ≥4 on the depression and overall BD illness subscales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale–Bipolar Version Severity scale (CGI-BP-S) at screening and at baseline.¹⁷ Study entry also required a score ≤12 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at screening and at baseline. The duration of the major depressive episode must have been ≥2 weeks but <6 months before screening, with symptoms causing clinically significant distress or functional impairment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in MADRS. Several secondary efficacy measures were examined, including the proportion of patients meeting criteria for treatment response (≥50% decrease in MADRS), or remission (MADRS score ≤12), and differential changes in MADRS scores from baseline for BD I and BD II subgroups.¹⁷

The patient population was 58% female and 91% White, with 79.9% diagnosed as BD I and 20.1% as BD II. The least squares mean changes on the MADRS total score from baseline to Day 43 were lumateperone 42 mg/d: -16.7 points; placebo: -12.1 points (P < .0001), and the effect size for this difference was moderate: 0.56. Secondary analyses indicated that 51.1% of those taking lumateperone 42 mg/d and 36.7% taking placebo met response criteria (P < .001), while 39.9% of those taking lumateperone 42 mg/d and 33.5% taking placebo met remission criteria (P = .018). Importantly, depression improvement was observed both in patients with BD I (effect size 0.49, P < .0001) and in those with BD II (effect size 0.81, P < .001).

The second pivotal trial (study 402) was a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive trial in which 528 patients age 18 to 75 with BD I or BD II experiencing a major depressive episode despite treatment with lithium or VPA were randomized in a 1:1:1 manner to lumateperone 28 mg/d, lumateperone 42 mg/d, or placebo given once daily in the evening.¹⁸ Like the monotherapy trial, symptom entry criteria included a MADRS total score ≥20, and scores ≥4 on the depression and overall illness CGI-BP-S subscales at screening and baseline.¹⁸ Study entry also required a score ≤12 on the YMRS at screening and baseline. The duration of the major depressive episode must have been ≥2 weeks but <6 months before screening, with symptoms causing clinically significant distress or functional impairment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in MADRS for lumateperone 42 mg/d compared to placebo. Secondary efficacy measures included MADRS changes for lumateperone 28 mg/d and the proportion of patients meeting criteria for treatment response (≥50% decrease in MADRS) or remission (MADRS score ≤12).

The patient population was 58% female and 88% White, with 83.3% diagnosed as BD I, 16.7% diagnosed as BD II, and 28.6% treated with lithium vs 71.4% on VPA. The effect size for the difference in MADRS total score from baseline to Day 43 for lumateperone 42 mg/d was 0.27 (P < .05), while that for the lumateperone 28 mg/d dose did not reach statistical significance. Secondary analyses indicated that response rates for lumateperone 28 mg/d and lumateperone 42 mg/d were significantly higher than for placebo (both P < .05). Response rates were placebo: 39%; lumateperone 28 mg/d: 50%; and lumateperone 42 mg/d: 45%. Remission rates were similar at Day 43 in both lumateperone groups compared with placebo: placebo: 31%, lumateperone 28 mg/d: 31%, and lumateperone 42 mg/d: 28%.¹⁸ As of this writing, a secondary analysis by BD subtype has not yet been presented.

A third study examining lumateperone monotherapy failed to establish superiority of lumateperone over placebo (NCT02600494). The data regarding tolerability from that study were incorporated in product labeling describing adverse reactions.

Continue on to: Adverse reactions...

Adverse reactions

In the positive monotherapy trial, there were 376 patients in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population to receive lumateperone (N = 188) or placebo (N = 188) with nearly identical completion rates in the active treatment and placebo cohorts: lumateperone, 88.8%; placebo, 88.3%.¹⁷ The proportion experiencing mania was low in both cohorts (lumateperone, 1.1%; placebo, 2.1%), and there was 1 case of hypomania in each group. One participant in the lumateperone group and 1 in the placebo group discontinued the study due to a serious adverse event of mania. There was no worsening of mania in either group as measured by mean change in the YMRS score. There was also no suicidal behavior in either cohort during the study. Pooling the 2 monotherapy trials, the adverse events that occurred at ≥5% in lumateperone-treated patients and at more than twice the rate of the placebo group were somnolence/sedation (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 13%, placebo: 3%), dizziness (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 8%, placebo: 4%), and nausea (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 8%, placebo: 3%).¹³ Rates of EPS were low for both groups: lumateperone 42 mg/d: 1.3%, placebo: 1.1%.¹³ Mean weight change at Day 43 was +0.11 kg for lumateperone and +0.03 kg for placebo in the positive monotherapy trial.¹⁷ Moreover, compared to placebo, lumateperone exhibited comparable effects on serum prolactin and all metabolic parameters, including fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and fasting lipids, none of which were clinically significant. No patient exhibited a corrected QT interval >500 ms at any time, and increases ≥60 ms from baseline were similar between the lumateperone (n = 1, 0.6%) and placebo (n = 3, 1.8%) cohorts.

Complete safety and tolerability data for the adjunctive trial has not yet been published, but discontinuation rates due to treatment-emergent adverse effects for the 3 arms were: lumateperone 42 mg/d: 5.6%; lumateperone 28 mg/d: 1.7%; and placebo: 1.7%. Overall, 81.4% of patients completed the trial, with only 1 serious adverse event (lithium toxicity) occurring in a patient taking lumateperone 42 mg/d. While this led to study discontinuation, it was not considered related to lumateperone exposure by the investigator. There was no worsening of mania in either lumateperone dosage group or the placebo cohort as measured by mean change in YMRS score: -1.2 for placebo, -1.4 for lumateperone 28 mg/d, and -1.6 for lumateperone 42 mg/d. Suicidal behavior was not observed in any group during treatment. The adverse events that occurred at rates ≥5% in lumateperone-treated patients and at more than twice the rate of the placebo group were somnolence/sedation (lumateperone, 13%; placebo, 3%), dizziness (lumateperone, 11%; placebo, 2%), and nausea (lumateperone, 9%; placebo, 4%).¹³ Rates of EPS were low for both groups: lumateperone, 4.0%, placebo, 2.3%.¹³ Mean weight changes at Day 43 were +0.23 kg for placebo, +0.02 kg for lumateperone 28 mg/d, and 0.00 kg for lumateperone 42 mg/d.¹⁸ Compared to placebo, both doses of lumateperone exhibited comparable effects on serum prolactin and all metabolic parameters, including fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and fasting lipids, none of which were clinically significant.¹⁸

Lastly, the package insert notes that in an uncontrolled, open-label trial of lumateperone for up to 6 months in patients with BD depression, the mean weight change was -0.01 ± 3.1 kg at Day 175.¹³

Continue on to: Pharmacologic profile...

Pharmacologic profile

Lumateperone’s preclinical discovery program found an impact on markers associated with increased glutamatergic neurotransmission, properties that were predicted to yield antidepressant benefit.^14,15,24 This is hypothesized to be based on the complex pharmacology of lumateperone, including dopamine D1 agonism, modest SERT occupancy, and near saturation of the 5HT2A receptor.^15,22 Dopamine D2 affinity is modest (32 nM), and the D2 receptor occupancy at the 42 mg dose is low. These properties translate to rates of EPS in clinical studies of schizophrenia and BD that are close to that of placebo. Lumateperone has very high affinity for serotonin 5HT2A receptors (Ki 0.54 nM), which also helps mitigate D2-related adverse effects and may be part of the therapeutic antidepressant mechanism. Underlying the tolerability profile is the low affinity for alpha 1-adrenergic receptors (Ki 73 nM), muscarinic and histaminergic receptors (Ki >100 nM for both).

Clinical considerations

Data from the lumateperone BD depression trials led to it being only the second agent approved for acute major depression in BD II patients, and the only agent which has approvals as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for both BD subtypes. The monotherapy trial results substantiate that lumateperone was robustly effective regardless of BD subtype, with significant improvement in depressive symptoms experienced by patients with BD I (effect size 0.49, P < .0001) and those with BD II (effect size 0.81, P < .001). Effect sizes in acute BD depression studies are much larger in monotherapy trials than in adjunctive trials, as the latter group represents patients who have already failed pretreatment with a mood stabilizer.^25,26 In the lurasidone BD I depression trials, the effect size based on mean change in MADRS score over the course of 6 weeks was 0.51 in the monotherapy study compared to 0.34 when used adjunctively with lithium or VPA.^25,26 In the lumateperone adjunctive study, the effect size for the difference in mean MADRS total score from baseline for lumateperone 42 mg/d, was 0.27 (P < .05). Subgroup analyses by BD subtype are not yet available for adjunctive use, but the data presented to FDA were sufficient to permit an indication for adjunctive use across both diagnostic groups.

The absence of clinically significant EPS, the minimal impact on metabolic or endocrine parameters, and the lack of a need for titration are all appealing properties. At the present there is only 1 marketed dose (42 mg capsules), so the package insert includes cautionary language regarding situations when a patient might encounter less drug exposure (concurrent use of cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4 inducers), or greater drug exposure due to concurrent use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, as well as in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment as defined by Child-Pugh Criteria (Child-Pugh B or C). These are not contraindications.

Unique properties of lumateperone include efficacy established as monotherapy for BD I and BD II patients, and efficacy for adjunctive use with lithium or VPA. Additionally, the extremely low rates of significant EPS and lack of clinically significant metabolic or endocrine adverse effects are unique properties of lumateperone.¹³

Why Rx? Reasons to prescribe lumateperone for adult BD depression patients include:

• data support efficacy for BD I and BD II patients, and for monotherapy or adjunctive use with lithium/VPA
• favorable tolerability profile, including no significant signal for EPS, endocrine or metabolic adverse effects, or QT prolongation
• no need for titration.

Dosing. There is only 1 dose available for lumateperone: 42 mg capsules (Table 3). As the dose cannot be modified, the package insert contains cautionary language regarding situations with less drug exposure (use of CYP3A4 inducers), or greater drug exposure (use with moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment as defined by Child-Pugh Criteria [Child-Pugh B or C]). These are not contraindications. Based on newer pharmacokinetic studies, lumateperone does not need to be dosed with food, and there is no clinically significant interaction with UGT1A4 inhibitors such as VPA.

Bottom Line

Data support the efficacy of lumateperone for treating depressive episodes in adults with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder, either as monotherapy or adjunctive to lithium or divalproex/valproate. Potential advantages of lumateperone for this indication include a favorable tolerability profile and no need for titration.

Among patients with bipolar I or II disorder (BD I or II), major depressive episodes represent the predominant mood state when not euthymic, and are disproportionately associated with the functional disability of BD and its suicide risk.¹ Long-term naturalistic studies of weekly mood states in patients with BD I or II found that the proportion of time spent depressed greatly exceeded that spent in a mixed, hypomanic, or manic state during >12 years of follow-up (Figure 1²and Figure 2³). In the 20th century, traditional antidepressants represented the sole option for management of bipolar depression despite concerns of manic switching or lack of efficacy.^4,5 Efficacy concerns were subsequently confirmed by placebo-controlled studies, such as the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) trial, which found limited effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressants for bipolar depression.⁶ Comprehensive reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational studies documented the risk of mood cycling and manic switching, especially in patients with BD I, even if antidepressants were used in the presence of mood-stabilizing medications.^7,8

Several newer antipsychotics have been FDA-approved for treating depressive episodes associated with BD (Table 1). Approval of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in December 2003 for depressive episodes associated with BD I established that mechanisms exist which can effectively treat acute depressive episodes in patients with BD without an inordinate risk of mood instability. Subsequent approval of quetia­pine in October 2006 for depression associated with BD I or II, lurasidone in June 2013, and cariprazine in May 2019 for major depression in BD I greatly expanded the options for management of acute bipolar depression. However, despite the array of molecules available, for certain patients these agents presented tolerability issues such as sedation, weight gain, akathisia, or parkinsonism that could hamper effective treatment.⁹ Safety and efficacy data in bipolar depression for adjunctive use with lithium or divalproex/valproate (VPA) also are lacking for quetiapine, OFC, and cariprazine.^10,11 Moreover, despite the fact that BD II is as prevalent as BD I, and that patients with BD II have comparable rates of comorbidity, chronicity, disability, and suicidality,¹² only quetiapine was approved for acute treatment of depression in patients with BD II. This omission is particularly problematic because the depressive episodes of BD II predominate over the time spent in hypomanic and cycling/mixed states (50.3% for depression vs 3.6% for hypomania/cycling/mixed combined), much more than is seen with BD I (31.9% for depression vs 14.8% for hypomania/cycling/mixed combined).^2,3 The paucity of data for the use of newer antipsychotics in BD II depression presents a problem when patients cannot tolerate or refuse to consider quetiapine. This prevents clinicians from engaging in evidence-based efficacy discussions of other options, even if it is assumed that the tolerability profile for BD II depression patients may be similar to that seen when these agents are used for BD I depression.

Continue to: Table 1...

Lumateperone (Caplyta) is a novel oral antipsychotic initially approved in 2019 for the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia. It was approved in December 2021 for the management of depression associated with BD I or II in adults as monotherapy or when used adjunctively with the mood stabilizers lithium or VPA (Table 2).¹³ Lumateperone possesses certain binding affinities not unlike those in other newer antipsychotics, including high affinity for serotonin 5HT2A receptors (Ki 0.54 nM), low affinity for dopamine D2 receptors (Ki 32 nM), and low affinity for alpha 1-adrenergic receptors (Ki 73 nM), muscarinic and histaminergic receptors (Ki >100 nM for both).^13,14 However, there are some distinguishing features: the ratio of 5HT2A receptor affinity to D2 affinity is 60, greater than that for other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) such as risperidone (12), olanzapine (12.4) or aripiprazole (0.18).¹⁵ At steady state, D2 receptor occupancy remains <40%, and the corresponding rates of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS)/akathisia differed by only 0.4% for lumateperone vs placebo in short-term adult clinical schizophrenia trials,^13,16 by 0.2% for lumateperone vs placebo in the monotherapy BD depression study, and by 1.7% in the adjunctive BD depression study.^13,17,18 Lumateperone also exhibited no clinically significant impact on metabolic measures or serum prolactin during the 4-week schizophrenia trials, with mean weight gain ≤1 kg for the 42 mg dose across all studies.¹⁹ This favorable tolerability profile for endocrine and metabolic adverse effects was also seen in the BD depression studies. Across the 2 BD depression monotherapy trials and the single adjunctive study, the only adverse reactions occurring in ≥5% of lumateperone-treated patients and more than twice the rate of placebo were somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth.¹³ There was also no single adverse reaction leading to discontinuation in the BD depression studies that occurred at a rate >2% in patients treated with lumateperone.¹³

Continue to: Clinical implications...

Clinical implications

The approval of lumateperone for both BD I and BD II depression, and for its use as monotherapy and for adjunctive use with lithium or VPA, satisfies several unmet needs for the management of acute major depressive episodes in patients with BD. Clinicians now have both safety and tolerability data to present to their bipolar spectrum patients regardless of subtype, and regardless of whether the patient requires mood stabilizer therapy. The tolerability advantages for lumateperone seen in schizophrenia trials were replicated in a diagnostic group that is very sensitive to D2-related adverse effects, and for whom any signal of clinically significant weight gain or sedation often represents an insuperable barrier to patient acceptance.²³

Efficacy in adults with BD I or II depression.

The efficacy of lumateperone for major depressive episodes has been established in 2 pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in BD I or II patients: 1 monotherapy study,¹⁷ and 1 study when used adjunctively to lithium or VPA.¹⁸ The first study was a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy trial (study 404) in which 377 patients age 18 to 75 with BD I or BD II experiencing a major depressive episode were randomized in a 1:1 manner to lumateperone 42 mg/d or placebo given once daily in the evening. Symptom entry criteria included a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20, and scores ≥4 on the depression and overall BD illness subscales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale–Bipolar Version Severity scale (CGI-BP-S) at screening and at baseline.¹⁷ Study entry also required a score ≤12 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at screening and at baseline. The duration of the major depressive episode must have been ≥2 weeks but <6 months before screening, with symptoms causing clinically significant distress or functional impairment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in MADRS. Several secondary efficacy measures were examined, including the proportion of patients meeting criteria for treatment response (≥50% decrease in MADRS), or remission (MADRS score ≤12), and differential changes in MADRS scores from baseline for BD I and BD II subgroups.¹⁷

The patient population was 58% female and 91% White, with 79.9% diagnosed as BD I and 20.1% as BD II. The least squares mean changes on the MADRS total score from baseline to Day 43 were lumateperone 42 mg/d: -16.7 points; placebo: -12.1 points (P < .0001), and the effect size for this difference was moderate: 0.56. Secondary analyses indicated that 51.1% of those taking lumateperone 42 mg/d and 36.7% taking placebo met response criteria (P < .001), while 39.9% of those taking lumateperone 42 mg/d and 33.5% taking placebo met remission criteria (P = .018). Importantly, depression improvement was observed both in patients with BD I (effect size 0.49, P < .0001) and in those with BD II (effect size 0.81, P < .001).

The second pivotal trial (study 402) was a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive trial in which 528 patients age 18 to 75 with BD I or BD II experiencing a major depressive episode despite treatment with lithium or VPA were randomized in a 1:1:1 manner to lumateperone 28 mg/d, lumateperone 42 mg/d, or placebo given once daily in the evening.¹⁸ Like the monotherapy trial, symptom entry criteria included a MADRS total score ≥20, and scores ≥4 on the depression and overall illness CGI-BP-S subscales at screening and baseline.¹⁸ Study entry also required a score ≤12 on the YMRS at screening and baseline. The duration of the major depressive episode must have been ≥2 weeks but <6 months before screening, with symptoms causing clinically significant distress or functional impairment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in MADRS for lumateperone 42 mg/d compared to placebo. Secondary efficacy measures included MADRS changes for lumateperone 28 mg/d and the proportion of patients meeting criteria for treatment response (≥50% decrease in MADRS) or remission (MADRS score ≤12).

The patient population was 58% female and 88% White, with 83.3% diagnosed as BD I, 16.7% diagnosed as BD II, and 28.6% treated with lithium vs 71.4% on VPA. The effect size for the difference in MADRS total score from baseline to Day 43 for lumateperone 42 mg/d was 0.27 (P < .05), while that for the lumateperone 28 mg/d dose did not reach statistical significance. Secondary analyses indicated that response rates for lumateperone 28 mg/d and lumateperone 42 mg/d were significantly higher than for placebo (both P < .05). Response rates were placebo: 39%; lumateperone 28 mg/d: 50%; and lumateperone 42 mg/d: 45%. Remission rates were similar at Day 43 in both lumateperone groups compared with placebo: placebo: 31%, lumateperone 28 mg/d: 31%, and lumateperone 42 mg/d: 28%.¹⁸ As of this writing, a secondary analysis by BD subtype has not yet been presented.

A third study examining lumateperone monotherapy failed to establish superiority of lumateperone over placebo (NCT02600494). The data regarding tolerability from that study were incorporated in product labeling describing adverse reactions.

Continue on to: Adverse reactions...

Adverse reactions

In the positive monotherapy trial, there were 376 patients in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population to receive lumateperone (N = 188) or placebo (N = 188) with nearly identical completion rates in the active treatment and placebo cohorts: lumateperone, 88.8%; placebo, 88.3%.¹⁷ The proportion experiencing mania was low in both cohorts (lumateperone, 1.1%; placebo, 2.1%), and there was 1 case of hypomania in each group. One participant in the lumateperone group and 1 in the placebo group discontinued the study due to a serious adverse event of mania. There was no worsening of mania in either group as measured by mean change in the YMRS score. There was also no suicidal behavior in either cohort during the study. Pooling the 2 monotherapy trials, the adverse events that occurred at ≥5% in lumateperone-treated patients and at more than twice the rate of the placebo group were somnolence/sedation (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 13%, placebo: 3%), dizziness (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 8%, placebo: 4%), and nausea (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 8%, placebo: 3%).¹³ Rates of EPS were low for both groups: lumateperone 42 mg/d: 1.3%, placebo: 1.1%.¹³ Mean weight change at Day 43 was +0.11 kg for lumateperone and +0.03 kg for placebo in the positive monotherapy trial.¹⁷ Moreover, compared to placebo, lumateperone exhibited comparable effects on serum prolactin and all metabolic parameters, including fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and fasting lipids, none of which were clinically significant. No patient exhibited a corrected QT interval >500 ms at any time, and increases ≥60 ms from baseline were similar between the lumateperone (n = 1, 0.6%) and placebo (n = 3, 1.8%) cohorts.

Complete safety and tolerability data for the adjunctive trial has not yet been published, but discontinuation rates due to treatment-emergent adverse effects for the 3 arms were: lumateperone 42 mg/d: 5.6%; lumateperone 28 mg/d: 1.7%; and placebo: 1.7%. Overall, 81.4% of patients completed the trial, with only 1 serious adverse event (lithium toxicity) occurring in a patient taking lumateperone 42 mg/d. While this led to study discontinuation, it was not considered related to lumateperone exposure by the investigator. There was no worsening of mania in either lumateperone dosage group or the placebo cohort as measured by mean change in YMRS score: -1.2 for placebo, -1.4 for lumateperone 28 mg/d, and -1.6 for lumateperone 42 mg/d. Suicidal behavior was not observed in any group during treatment. The adverse events that occurred at rates ≥5% in lumateperone-treated patients and at more than twice the rate of the placebo group were somnolence/sedation (lumateperone, 13%; placebo, 3%), dizziness (lumateperone, 11%; placebo, 2%), and nausea (lumateperone, 9%; placebo, 4%).¹³ Rates of EPS were low for both groups: lumateperone, 4.0%, placebo, 2.3%.¹³ Mean weight changes at Day 43 were +0.23 kg for placebo, +0.02 kg for lumateperone 28 mg/d, and 0.00 kg for lumateperone 42 mg/d.¹⁸ Compared to placebo, both doses of lumateperone exhibited comparable effects on serum prolactin and all metabolic parameters, including fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and fasting lipids, none of which were clinically significant.¹⁸

Lastly, the package insert notes that in an uncontrolled, open-label trial of lumateperone for up to 6 months in patients with BD depression, the mean weight change was -0.01 ± 3.1 kg at Day 175.¹³

Continue on to: Pharmacologic profile...

Pharmacologic profile

Lumateperone’s preclinical discovery program found an impact on markers associated with increased glutamatergic neurotransmission, properties that were predicted to yield antidepressant benefit.^14,15,24 This is hypothesized to be based on the complex pharmacology of lumateperone, including dopamine D1 agonism, modest SERT occupancy, and near saturation of the 5HT2A receptor.^15,22 Dopamine D2 affinity is modest (32 nM), and the D2 receptor occupancy at the 42 mg dose is low. These properties translate to rates of EPS in clinical studies of schizophrenia and BD that are close to that of placebo. Lumateperone has very high affinity for serotonin 5HT2A receptors (Ki 0.54 nM), which also helps mitigate D2-related adverse effects and may be part of the therapeutic antidepressant mechanism. Underlying the tolerability profile is the low affinity for alpha 1-adrenergic receptors (Ki 73 nM), muscarinic and histaminergic receptors (Ki >100 nM for both).

Clinical considerations

Data from the lumateperone BD depression trials led to it being only the second agent approved for acute major depression in BD II patients, and the only agent which has approvals as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for both BD subtypes. The monotherapy trial results substantiate that lumateperone was robustly effective regardless of BD subtype, with significant improvement in depressive symptoms experienced by patients with BD I (effect size 0.49, P < .0001) and those with BD II (effect size 0.81, P < .001). Effect sizes in acute BD depression studies are much larger in monotherapy trials than in adjunctive trials, as the latter group represents patients who have already failed pretreatment with a mood stabilizer.^25,26 In the lurasidone BD I depression trials, the effect size based on mean change in MADRS score over the course of 6 weeks was 0.51 in the monotherapy study compared to 0.34 when used adjunctively with lithium or VPA.^25,26 In the lumateperone adjunctive study, the effect size for the difference in mean MADRS total score from baseline for lumateperone 42 mg/d, was 0.27 (P < .05). Subgroup analyses by BD subtype are not yet available for adjunctive use, but the data presented to FDA were sufficient to permit an indication for adjunctive use across both diagnostic groups.

The absence of clinically significant EPS, the minimal impact on metabolic or endocrine parameters, and the lack of a need for titration are all appealing properties. At the present there is only 1 marketed dose (42 mg capsules), so the package insert includes cautionary language regarding situations when a patient might encounter less drug exposure (concurrent use of cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4 inducers), or greater drug exposure due to concurrent use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, as well as in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment as defined by Child-Pugh Criteria (Child-Pugh B or C). These are not contraindications.

Unique properties of lumateperone include efficacy established as monotherapy for BD I and BD II patients, and efficacy for adjunctive use with lithium or VPA. Additionally, the extremely low rates of significant EPS and lack of clinically significant metabolic or endocrine adverse effects are unique properties of lumateperone.¹³

Why Rx? Reasons to prescribe lumateperone for adult BD depression patients include:

• data support efficacy for BD I and BD II patients, and for monotherapy or adjunctive use with lithium/VPA
• favorable tolerability profile, including no significant signal for EPS, endocrine or metabolic adverse effects, or QT prolongation
• no need for titration.

Dosing. There is only 1 dose available for lumateperone: 42 mg capsules (Table 3). As the dose cannot be modified, the package insert contains cautionary language regarding situations with less drug exposure (use of CYP3A4 inducers), or greater drug exposure (use with moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment as defined by Child-Pugh Criteria [Child-Pugh B or C]). These are not contraindications. Based on newer pharmacokinetic studies, lumateperone does not need to be dosed with food, and there is no clinically significant interaction with UGT1A4 inhibitors such as VPA.

Bottom Line

Data support the efficacy of lumateperone for treating depressive episodes in adults with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder, either as monotherapy or adjunctive to lithium or divalproex/valproate. Potential advantages of lumateperone for this indication include a favorable tolerability profile and no need for titration.

Among patients with bipolar I or II disorder (BD I or II), major depressive episodes represent the predominant mood state when not euthymic, and are disproportionately associated with the functional disability of BD and its suicide risk.¹ Long-term naturalistic studies of weekly mood states in patients with BD I or II found that the proportion of time spent depressed greatly exceeded that spent in a mixed, hypomanic, or manic state during >12 years of follow-up (Figure 1²and Figure 2³). In the 20th century, traditional antidepressants represented the sole option for management of bipolar depression despite concerns of manic switching or lack of efficacy.^4,5 Efficacy concerns were subsequently confirmed by placebo-controlled studies, such as the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) trial, which found limited effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressants for bipolar depression.⁶ Comprehensive reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational studies documented the risk of mood cycling and manic switching, especially in patients with BD I, even if antidepressants were used in the presence of mood-stabilizing medications.^7,8

Several newer antipsychotics have been FDA-approved for treating depressive episodes associated with BD (Table 1). Approval of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in December 2003 for depressive episodes associated with BD I established that mechanisms exist which can effectively treat acute depressive episodes in patients with BD without an inordinate risk of mood instability. Subsequent approval of quetia­pine in October 2006 for depression associated with BD I or II, lurasidone in June 2013, and cariprazine in May 2019 for major depression in BD I greatly expanded the options for management of acute bipolar depression. However, despite the array of molecules available, for certain patients these agents presented tolerability issues such as sedation, weight gain, akathisia, or parkinsonism that could hamper effective treatment.⁹ Safety and efficacy data in bipolar depression for adjunctive use with lithium or divalproex/valproate (VPA) also are lacking for quetiapine, OFC, and cariprazine.^10,11 Moreover, despite the fact that BD II is as prevalent as BD I, and that patients with BD II have comparable rates of comorbidity, chronicity, disability, and suicidality,¹² only quetiapine was approved for acute treatment of depression in patients with BD II. This omission is particularly problematic because the depressive episodes of BD II predominate over the time spent in hypomanic and cycling/mixed states (50.3% for depression vs 3.6% for hypomania/cycling/mixed combined), much more than is seen with BD I (31.9% for depression vs 14.8% for hypomania/cycling/mixed combined).^2,3 The paucity of data for the use of newer antipsychotics in BD II depression presents a problem when patients cannot tolerate or refuse to consider quetiapine. This prevents clinicians from engaging in evidence-based efficacy discussions of other options, even if it is assumed that the tolerability profile for BD II depression patients may be similar to that seen when these agents are used for BD I depression.

Continue to: Table 1...

Lumateperone (Caplyta) is a novel oral antipsychotic initially approved in 2019 for the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia. It was approved in December 2021 for the management of depression associated with BD I or II in adults as monotherapy or when used adjunctively with the mood stabilizers lithium or VPA (Table 2).¹³ Lumateperone possesses certain binding affinities not unlike those in other newer antipsychotics, including high affinity for serotonin 5HT2A receptors (Ki 0.54 nM), low affinity for dopamine D2 receptors (Ki 32 nM), and low affinity for alpha 1-adrenergic receptors (Ki 73 nM), muscarinic and histaminergic receptors (Ki >100 nM for both).^13,14 However, there are some distinguishing features: the ratio of 5HT2A receptor affinity to D2 affinity is 60, greater than that for other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) such as risperidone (12), olanzapine (12.4) or aripiprazole (0.18).¹⁵ At steady state, D2 receptor occupancy remains <40%, and the corresponding rates of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS)/akathisia differed by only 0.4% for lumateperone vs placebo in short-term adult clinical schizophrenia trials,^13,16 by 0.2% for lumateperone vs placebo in the monotherapy BD depression study, and by 1.7% in the adjunctive BD depression study.^13,17,18 Lumateperone also exhibited no clinically significant impact on metabolic measures or serum prolactin during the 4-week schizophrenia trials, with mean weight gain ≤1 kg for the 42 mg dose across all studies.¹⁹ This favorable tolerability profile for endocrine and metabolic adverse effects was also seen in the BD depression studies. Across the 2 BD depression monotherapy trials and the single adjunctive study, the only adverse reactions occurring in ≥5% of lumateperone-treated patients and more than twice the rate of placebo were somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth.¹³ There was also no single adverse reaction leading to discontinuation in the BD depression studies that occurred at a rate >2% in patients treated with lumateperone.¹³

Continue to: Clinical implications...

Clinical implications

The approval of lumateperone for both BD I and BD II depression, and for its use as monotherapy and for adjunctive use with lithium or VPA, satisfies several unmet needs for the management of acute major depressive episodes in patients with BD. Clinicians now have both safety and tolerability data to present to their bipolar spectrum patients regardless of subtype, and regardless of whether the patient requires mood stabilizer therapy. The tolerability advantages for lumateperone seen in schizophrenia trials were replicated in a diagnostic group that is very sensitive to D2-related adverse effects, and for whom any signal of clinically significant weight gain or sedation often represents an insuperable barrier to patient acceptance.²³

Efficacy in adults with BD I or II depression.

The efficacy of lumateperone for major depressive episodes has been established in 2 pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in BD I or II patients: 1 monotherapy study,¹⁷ and 1 study when used adjunctively to lithium or VPA.¹⁸ The first study was a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy trial (study 404) in which 377 patients age 18 to 75 with BD I or BD II experiencing a major depressive episode were randomized in a 1:1 manner to lumateperone 42 mg/d or placebo given once daily in the evening. Symptom entry criteria included a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20, and scores ≥4 on the depression and overall BD illness subscales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale–Bipolar Version Severity scale (CGI-BP-S) at screening and at baseline.¹⁷ Study entry also required a score ≤12 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at screening and at baseline. The duration of the major depressive episode must have been ≥2 weeks but <6 months before screening, with symptoms causing clinically significant distress or functional impairment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in MADRS. Several secondary efficacy measures were examined, including the proportion of patients meeting criteria for treatment response (≥50% decrease in MADRS), or remission (MADRS score ≤12), and differential changes in MADRS scores from baseline for BD I and BD II subgroups.¹⁷

The patient population was 58% female and 91% White, with 79.9% diagnosed as BD I and 20.1% as BD II. The least squares mean changes on the MADRS total score from baseline to Day 43 were lumateperone 42 mg/d: -16.7 points; placebo: -12.1 points (P < .0001), and the effect size for this difference was moderate: 0.56. Secondary analyses indicated that 51.1% of those taking lumateperone 42 mg/d and 36.7% taking placebo met response criteria (P < .001), while 39.9% of those taking lumateperone 42 mg/d and 33.5% taking placebo met remission criteria (P = .018). Importantly, depression improvement was observed both in patients with BD I (effect size 0.49, P < .0001) and in those with BD II (effect size 0.81, P < .001).

The second pivotal trial (study 402) was a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive trial in which 528 patients age 18 to 75 with BD I or BD II experiencing a major depressive episode despite treatment with lithium or VPA were randomized in a 1:1:1 manner to lumateperone 28 mg/d, lumateperone 42 mg/d, or placebo given once daily in the evening.¹⁸ Like the monotherapy trial, symptom entry criteria included a MADRS total score ≥20, and scores ≥4 on the depression and overall illness CGI-BP-S subscales at screening and baseline.¹⁸ Study entry also required a score ≤12 on the YMRS at screening and baseline. The duration of the major depressive episode must have been ≥2 weeks but <6 months before screening, with symptoms causing clinically significant distress or functional impairment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in MADRS for lumateperone 42 mg/d compared to placebo. Secondary efficacy measures included MADRS changes for lumateperone 28 mg/d and the proportion of patients meeting criteria for treatment response (≥50% decrease in MADRS) or remission (MADRS score ≤12).

The patient population was 58% female and 88% White, with 83.3% diagnosed as BD I, 16.7% diagnosed as BD II, and 28.6% treated with lithium vs 71.4% on VPA. The effect size for the difference in MADRS total score from baseline to Day 43 for lumateperone 42 mg/d was 0.27 (P < .05), while that for the lumateperone 28 mg/d dose did not reach statistical significance. Secondary analyses indicated that response rates for lumateperone 28 mg/d and lumateperone 42 mg/d were significantly higher than for placebo (both P < .05). Response rates were placebo: 39%; lumateperone 28 mg/d: 50%; and lumateperone 42 mg/d: 45%. Remission rates were similar at Day 43 in both lumateperone groups compared with placebo: placebo: 31%, lumateperone 28 mg/d: 31%, and lumateperone 42 mg/d: 28%.¹⁸ As of this writing, a secondary analysis by BD subtype has not yet been presented.

A third study examining lumateperone monotherapy failed to establish superiority of lumateperone over placebo (NCT02600494). The data regarding tolerability from that study were incorporated in product labeling describing adverse reactions.

Continue on to: Adverse reactions...

Adverse reactions

In the positive monotherapy trial, there were 376 patients in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population to receive lumateperone (N = 188) or placebo (N = 188) with nearly identical completion rates in the active treatment and placebo cohorts: lumateperone, 88.8%; placebo, 88.3%.¹⁷ The proportion experiencing mania was low in both cohorts (lumateperone, 1.1%; placebo, 2.1%), and there was 1 case of hypomania in each group. One participant in the lumateperone group and 1 in the placebo group discontinued the study due to a serious adverse event of mania. There was no worsening of mania in either group as measured by mean change in the YMRS score. There was also no suicidal behavior in either cohort during the study. Pooling the 2 monotherapy trials, the adverse events that occurred at ≥5% in lumateperone-treated patients and at more than twice the rate of the placebo group were somnolence/sedation (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 13%, placebo: 3%), dizziness (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 8%, placebo: 4%), and nausea (lumateperone 42 mg/d: 8%, placebo: 3%).¹³ Rates of EPS were low for both groups: lumateperone 42 mg/d: 1.3%, placebo: 1.1%.¹³ Mean weight change at Day 43 was +0.11 kg for lumateperone and +0.03 kg for placebo in the positive monotherapy trial.¹⁷ Moreover, compared to placebo, lumateperone exhibited comparable effects on serum prolactin and all metabolic parameters, including fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and fasting lipids, none of which were clinically significant. No patient exhibited a corrected QT interval >500 ms at any time, and increases ≥60 ms from baseline were similar between the lumateperone (n = 1, 0.6%) and placebo (n = 3, 1.8%) cohorts.

Complete safety and tolerability data for the adjunctive trial has not yet been published, but discontinuation rates due to treatment-emergent adverse effects for the 3 arms were: lumateperone 42 mg/d: 5.6%; lumateperone 28 mg/d: 1.7%; and placebo: 1.7%. Overall, 81.4% of patients completed the trial, with only 1 serious adverse event (lithium toxicity) occurring in a patient taking lumateperone 42 mg/d. While this led to study discontinuation, it was not considered related to lumateperone exposure by the investigator. There was no worsening of mania in either lumateperone dosage group or the placebo cohort as measured by mean change in YMRS score: -1.2 for placebo, -1.4 for lumateperone 28 mg/d, and -1.6 for lumateperone 42 mg/d. Suicidal behavior was not observed in any group during treatment. The adverse events that occurred at rates ≥5% in lumateperone-treated patients and at more than twice the rate of the placebo group were somnolence/sedation (lumateperone, 13%; placebo, 3%), dizziness (lumateperone, 11%; placebo, 2%), and nausea (lumateperone, 9%; placebo, 4%).¹³ Rates of EPS were low for both groups: lumateperone, 4.0%, placebo, 2.3%.¹³ Mean weight changes at Day 43 were +0.23 kg for placebo, +0.02 kg for lumateperone 28 mg/d, and 0.00 kg for lumateperone 42 mg/d.¹⁸ Compared to placebo, both doses of lumateperone exhibited comparable effects on serum prolactin and all metabolic parameters, including fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and fasting lipids, none of which were clinically significant.¹⁸

Lastly, the package insert notes that in an uncontrolled, open-label trial of lumateperone for up to 6 months in patients with BD depression, the mean weight change was -0.01 ± 3.1 kg at Day 175.¹³

Continue on to: Pharmacologic profile...

Pharmacologic profile

Lumateperone’s preclinical discovery program found an impact on markers associated with increased glutamatergic neurotransmission, properties that were predicted to yield antidepressant benefit.^14,15,24 This is hypothesized to be based on the complex pharmacology of lumateperone, including dopamine D1 agonism, modest SERT occupancy, and near saturation of the 5HT2A receptor.^15,22 Dopamine D2 affinity is modest (32 nM), and the D2 receptor occupancy at the 42 mg dose is low. These properties translate to rates of EPS in clinical studies of schizophrenia and BD that are close to that of placebo. Lumateperone has very high affinity for serotonin 5HT2A receptors (Ki 0.54 nM), which also helps mitigate D2-related adverse effects and may be part of the therapeutic antidepressant mechanism. Underlying the tolerability profile is the low affinity for alpha 1-adrenergic receptors (Ki 73 nM), muscarinic and histaminergic receptors (Ki >100 nM for both).

Clinical considerations

Data from the lumateperone BD depression trials led to it being only the second agent approved for acute major depression in BD II patients, and the only agent which has approvals as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for both BD subtypes. The monotherapy trial results substantiate that lumateperone was robustly effective regardless of BD subtype, with significant improvement in depressive symptoms experienced by patients with BD I (effect size 0.49, P < .0001) and those with BD II (effect size 0.81, P < .001). Effect sizes in acute BD depression studies are much larger in monotherapy trials than in adjunctive trials, as the latter group represents patients who have already failed pretreatment with a mood stabilizer.^25,26 In the lurasidone BD I depression trials, the effect size based on mean change in MADRS score over the course of 6 weeks was 0.51 in the monotherapy study compared to 0.34 when used adjunctively with lithium or VPA.^25,26 In the lumateperone adjunctive study, the effect size for the difference in mean MADRS total score from baseline for lumateperone 42 mg/d, was 0.27 (P < .05). Subgroup analyses by BD subtype are not yet available for adjunctive use, but the data presented to FDA were sufficient to permit an indication for adjunctive use across both diagnostic groups.

The absence of clinically significant EPS, the minimal impact on metabolic or endocrine parameters, and the lack of a need for titration are all appealing properties. At the present there is only 1 marketed dose (42 mg capsules), so the package insert includes cautionary language regarding situations when a patient might encounter less drug exposure (concurrent use of cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4 inducers), or greater drug exposure due to concurrent use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, as well as in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment as defined by Child-Pugh Criteria (Child-Pugh B or C). These are not contraindications.

Unique properties of lumateperone include efficacy established as monotherapy for BD I and BD II patients, and efficacy for adjunctive use with lithium or VPA. Additionally, the extremely low rates of significant EPS and lack of clinically significant metabolic or endocrine adverse effects are unique properties of lumateperone.¹³

Why Rx? Reasons to prescribe lumateperone for adult BD depression patients include:

• data support efficacy for BD I and BD II patients, and for monotherapy or adjunctive use with lithium/VPA
• favorable tolerability profile, including no significant signal for EPS, endocrine or metabolic adverse effects, or QT prolongation
• no need for titration.

Dosing. There is only 1 dose available for lumateperone: 42 mg capsules (Table 3). As the dose cannot be modified, the package insert contains cautionary language regarding situations with less drug exposure (use of CYP3A4 inducers), or greater drug exposure (use with moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment as defined by Child-Pugh Criteria [Child-Pugh B or C]). These are not contraindications. Based on newer pharmacokinetic studies, lumateperone does not need to be dosed with food, and there is no clinically significant interaction with UGT1A4 inhibitors such as VPA.

Bottom Line

Data support the efficacy of lumateperone for treating depressive episodes in adults with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder, either as monotherapy or adjunctive to lithium or divalproex/valproate. Potential advantages of lumateperone for this indication include a favorable tolerability profile and no need for titration.

Schizotypal disorder is a complex condition that is characterized by cognitive-perceptual impairments, oddness, disorganization, and interpersonal difficulties. It often is unrecognized or underdiagnosed. In DSM-5, schizotypal disorder is categorized a personality disorder, but it is also considered part of the schizophrenia spectrum disorders.¹ The diagnostic criteria for schizotypal disorder are outlined in the Table.^1,2

Although schizotypal disorder has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 4% in the general population of the United States,² it can present during childhood or adolescence and may be overlooked in the differential diagnosis for psychotic symptoms in pediatric patients.³ Schizotypal disorder of childhood (SDC) can present with significant overlap with several pediatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia spectrum disorders and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), all of which may include psychotic symptoms and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. This overlap, combined with the lack of awareness of schizotypal disorder, can pose a diagnostic challenge. Better recognition of SDC could result in earlier and more effective treatment. In this article, we provide tips for differentiating SDC from childhood-onset schizophrenia and from ASD.

Differentiating SDC from schizophrenia

SDC may be mistaken for childhood-onset schizophrenia due to its perceptual disturbances (which may be interpreted as visual or auditory hallucinations), bizarre fantasies (which may be mistaken for overt delusions), paranoia, and odd behavior. Two ways to distinguish SDC from childhood schizophrenia are by clinical course and by severity of negative psychotic symptoms.

SDC tends to have an overall stable clinical course,⁴ with patients experiencing periods of time when they exhibit a more normal mental status complemented by fluctuations in symptom severity, which are exacerbated by stressors and followed by a return to baseline.³ SDC psychotic symptoms are predominantly positive, and patients typically do not demonstrate negative features beyond social difficulties. Childhood-onset schizophrenia is typically progressive and disabling, with worsening severity over time, and is much more likely to incorporate prominent negative symptoms.³

Differentiating SDC from ASD

SDC also demonstrates considerable diagnostic overlap with ASD, especially with regards to inappropriate affect; odd thinking, behavior, and speech; and social difficulties. Further complicating the diagnosis, ASD and SDC are comorbid in approximately 40% of ASD cases.^3,5 The Melbourne Assessment of Schizotypy in Kids demonstrates validity in diagnosing schizotypal disorder in patients with comorbid ASD.^5,6 For clinicians without easy access to advanced testing, 2 ways to distinguish SDC from ASD are the content of the odd behavior and thoughts, and the patient’s reaction to social deficits.

In SDC, odd behavior and thoughts most often revolve around daydreaming and a focus on “elaborate inner fantasies.”^3,6 Unlike in ASD, in patients with SDC, behaviors don’t typically involve stereotyped mannerisms, the patient is unlikely to have rigid interests (apart from their fantasies), and there is not a particular focus on detail in the external world.^3,6 Notably, imaginary companions are common in SDC; children with ASD are less likely to have an imaginary companion compared with children with SDC or those with no psychiatric diagnosis.⁶ Patients with SDC have social difficulties (often due to social anxiety stemming from their paranoia) but usually seek out interaction and are bothered by alienation, while patients with ASD may have less interest in social engagement.⁶

Schizotypal disorder is a complex condition that is characterized by cognitive-perceptual impairments, oddness, disorganization, and interpersonal difficulties. It often is unrecognized or underdiagnosed. In DSM-5, schizotypal disorder is categorized a personality disorder, but it is also considered part of the schizophrenia spectrum disorders.¹ The diagnostic criteria for schizotypal disorder are outlined in the Table.^1,2

Although schizotypal disorder has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 4% in the general population of the United States,² it can present during childhood or adolescence and may be overlooked in the differential diagnosis for psychotic symptoms in pediatric patients.³ Schizotypal disorder of childhood (SDC) can present with significant overlap with several pediatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia spectrum disorders and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), all of which may include psychotic symptoms and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. This overlap, combined with the lack of awareness of schizotypal disorder, can pose a diagnostic challenge. Better recognition of SDC could result in earlier and more effective treatment. In this article, we provide tips for differentiating SDC from childhood-onset schizophrenia and from ASD.

Differentiating SDC from schizophrenia

SDC may be mistaken for childhood-onset schizophrenia due to its perceptual disturbances (which may be interpreted as visual or auditory hallucinations), bizarre fantasies (which may be mistaken for overt delusions), paranoia, and odd behavior. Two ways to distinguish SDC from childhood schizophrenia are by clinical course and by severity of negative psychotic symptoms.

SDC tends to have an overall stable clinical course,⁴ with patients experiencing periods of time when they exhibit a more normal mental status complemented by fluctuations in symptom severity, which are exacerbated by stressors and followed by a return to baseline.³ SDC psychotic symptoms are predominantly positive, and patients typically do not demonstrate negative features beyond social difficulties. Childhood-onset schizophrenia is typically progressive and disabling, with worsening severity over time, and is much more likely to incorporate prominent negative symptoms.³

Differentiating SDC from ASD

SDC also demonstrates considerable diagnostic overlap with ASD, especially with regards to inappropriate affect; odd thinking, behavior, and speech; and social difficulties. Further complicating the diagnosis, ASD and SDC are comorbid in approximately 40% of ASD cases.^3,5 The Melbourne Assessment of Schizotypy in Kids demonstrates validity in diagnosing schizotypal disorder in patients with comorbid ASD.^5,6 For clinicians without easy access to advanced testing, 2 ways to distinguish SDC from ASD are the content of the odd behavior and thoughts, and the patient’s reaction to social deficits.

In SDC, odd behavior and thoughts most often revolve around daydreaming and a focus on “elaborate inner fantasies.”^3,6 Unlike in ASD, in patients with SDC, behaviors don’t typically involve stereotyped mannerisms, the patient is unlikely to have rigid interests (apart from their fantasies), and there is not a particular focus on detail in the external world.^3,6 Notably, imaginary companions are common in SDC; children with ASD are less likely to have an imaginary companion compared with children with SDC or those with no psychiatric diagnosis.⁶ Patients with SDC have social difficulties (often due to social anxiety stemming from their paranoia) but usually seek out interaction and are bothered by alienation, while patients with ASD may have less interest in social engagement.⁶

Schizotypal disorder is a complex condition that is characterized by cognitive-perceptual impairments, oddness, disorganization, and interpersonal difficulties. It often is unrecognized or underdiagnosed. In DSM-5, schizotypal disorder is categorized a personality disorder, but it is also considered part of the schizophrenia spectrum disorders.¹ The diagnostic criteria for schizotypal disorder are outlined in the Table.^1,2

Although schizotypal disorder has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 4% in the general population of the United States,² it can present during childhood or adolescence and may be overlooked in the differential diagnosis for psychotic symptoms in pediatric patients.³ Schizotypal disorder of childhood (SDC) can present with significant overlap with several pediatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia spectrum disorders and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), all of which may include psychotic symptoms and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. This overlap, combined with the lack of awareness of schizotypal disorder, can pose a diagnostic challenge. Better recognition of SDC could result in earlier and more effective treatment. In this article, we provide tips for differentiating SDC from childhood-onset schizophrenia and from ASD.

Differentiating SDC from schizophrenia

SDC may be mistaken for childhood-onset schizophrenia due to its perceptual disturbances (which may be interpreted as visual or auditory hallucinations), bizarre fantasies (which may be mistaken for overt delusions), paranoia, and odd behavior. Two ways to distinguish SDC from childhood schizophrenia are by clinical course and by severity of negative psychotic symptoms.

SDC tends to have an overall stable clinical course,⁴ with patients experiencing periods of time when they exhibit a more normal mental status complemented by fluctuations in symptom severity, which are exacerbated by stressors and followed by a return to baseline.³ SDC psychotic symptoms are predominantly positive, and patients typically do not demonstrate negative features beyond social difficulties. Childhood-onset schizophrenia is typically progressive and disabling, with worsening severity over time, and is much more likely to incorporate prominent negative symptoms.³

Differentiating SDC from ASD

SDC also demonstrates considerable diagnostic overlap with ASD, especially with regards to inappropriate affect; odd thinking, behavior, and speech; and social difficulties. Further complicating the diagnosis, ASD and SDC are comorbid in approximately 40% of ASD cases.^3,5 The Melbourne Assessment of Schizotypy in Kids demonstrates validity in diagnosing schizotypal disorder in patients with comorbid ASD.^5,6 For clinicians without easy access to advanced testing, 2 ways to distinguish SDC from ASD are the content of the odd behavior and thoughts, and the patient’s reaction to social deficits.

In SDC, odd behavior and thoughts most often revolve around daydreaming and a focus on “elaborate inner fantasies.”^3,6 Unlike in ASD, in patients with SDC, behaviors don’t typically involve stereotyped mannerisms, the patient is unlikely to have rigid interests (apart from their fantasies), and there is not a particular focus on detail in the external world.^3,6 Notably, imaginary companions are common in SDC; children with ASD are less likely to have an imaginary companion compared with children with SDC or those with no psychiatric diagnosis.⁶ Patients with SDC have social difficulties (often due to social anxiety stemming from their paranoia) but usually seek out interaction and are bothered by alienation, while patients with ASD may have less interest in social engagement.⁶

Although we may want to say “yes” when our patients ask us for certain medications, work excuses, etc, often it is more appropriate to say “no” because the conditions do not support those requests. Saying no to a patient usually is not a comfortable experience, but we should not say yes to avoid hurting their feelings, damaging our rapport with them, or having them post potential negative reviews about us. For many of us, saying no is a skill that does not come naturally. For some, bluntly telling a patient no may work, but this approach is more likely to be ineffective. At the same time, saying no in an equivocal manner may weaken our patients’ confidence in us and could be displeasing for both our patients and us.^1,2

We should say no in an “effective, professional manner that fosters good patient care and preserves the therapeutic relationship, while supporting physician well-being.”¹ In this article, I provide practical tips for saying no to inappropriate patient requests in an emphatic manner so that we can feel more empowered and less uncomfortable.

Acknowledge and analyze your discomfort.

Before saying no, recognize that you are feeling uncomfortable with your patient’s inappropriate request. This uncomfortable feeling is a probable cue that there is likely no appropriate context for their request, ie, saying yes would be poor medical care, illegal, against policy, etc.^1,3 In most cases, you should be able to identify the reason(s) your patient’s request feels inappropriate and uncomfortable.

Gather information and provide an explanation.

Ask your patient for more information about their request so you can determine if there are any underlying factors and if any additional information is needed.³ Once you decide to say no, explain why. Your explanation should be brief, because lengthy explanations might create room for debate (which could be exhausting and/or time-consuming), lead to giving in to their inappropriate request, and/or lead them to become more frustrated and misunderstood.¹

Be empathetic, and re-establish rapport.

After declining a patient’s request, you may have to use empathy to re-establish rapport if it has been damaged. After being told no, your patient may feel frustrated or powerless. Acknowledge their feelings with statements such as “I know this is not want you wanted to hear” or “I can see you are irritated.”Accept your patient’s negative emotions, rather than minimizing them or trying to fix them.^1,3

Although we may want to say “yes” when our patients ask us for certain medications, work excuses, etc, often it is more appropriate to say “no” because the conditions do not support those requests. Saying no to a patient usually is not a comfortable experience, but we should not say yes to avoid hurting their feelings, damaging our rapport with them, or having them post potential negative reviews about us. For many of us, saying no is a skill that does not come naturally. For some, bluntly telling a patient no may work, but this approach is more likely to be ineffective. At the same time, saying no in an equivocal manner may weaken our patients’ confidence in us and could be displeasing for both our patients and us.^1,2

We should say no in an “effective, professional manner that fosters good patient care and preserves the therapeutic relationship, while supporting physician well-being.”¹ In this article, I provide practical tips for saying no to inappropriate patient requests in an emphatic manner so that we can feel more empowered and less uncomfortable.

Acknowledge and analyze your discomfort.

Before saying no, recognize that you are feeling uncomfortable with your patient’s inappropriate request. This uncomfortable feeling is a probable cue that there is likely no appropriate context for their request, ie, saying yes would be poor medical care, illegal, against policy, etc.^1,3 In most cases, you should be able to identify the reason(s) your patient’s request feels inappropriate and uncomfortable.

Gather information and provide an explanation.

Ask your patient for more information about their request so you can determine if there are any underlying factors and if any additional information is needed.³ Once you decide to say no, explain why. Your explanation should be brief, because lengthy explanations might create room for debate (which could be exhausting and/or time-consuming), lead to giving in to their inappropriate request, and/or lead them to become more frustrated and misunderstood.¹

Be empathetic, and re-establish rapport.

After declining a patient’s request, you may have to use empathy to re-establish rapport if it has been damaged. After being told no, your patient may feel frustrated or powerless. Acknowledge their feelings with statements such as “I know this is not want you wanted to hear” or “I can see you are irritated.”Accept your patient’s negative emotions, rather than minimizing them or trying to fix them.^1,3

Although we may want to say “yes” when our patients ask us for certain medications, work excuses, etc, often it is more appropriate to say “no” because the conditions do not support those requests. Saying no to a patient usually is not a comfortable experience, but we should not say yes to avoid hurting their feelings, damaging our rapport with them, or having them post potential negative reviews about us. For many of us, saying no is a skill that does not come naturally. For some, bluntly telling a patient no may work, but this approach is more likely to be ineffective. At the same time, saying no in an equivocal manner may weaken our patients’ confidence in us and could be displeasing for both our patients and us.^1,2

We should say no in an “effective, professional manner that fosters good patient care and preserves the therapeutic relationship, while supporting physician well-being.”¹ In this article, I provide practical tips for saying no to inappropriate patient requests in an emphatic manner so that we can feel more empowered and less uncomfortable.

Acknowledge and analyze your discomfort.

Before saying no, recognize that you are feeling uncomfortable with your patient’s inappropriate request. This uncomfortable feeling is a probable cue that there is likely no appropriate context for their request, ie, saying yes would be poor medical care, illegal, against policy, etc.^1,3 In most cases, you should be able to identify the reason(s) your patient’s request feels inappropriate and uncomfortable.

Gather information and provide an explanation.

Ask your patient for more information about their request so you can determine if there are any underlying factors and if any additional information is needed.³ Once you decide to say no, explain why. Your explanation should be brief, because lengthy explanations might create room for debate (which could be exhausting and/or time-consuming), lead to giving in to their inappropriate request, and/or lead them to become more frustrated and misunderstood.¹

Be empathetic, and re-establish rapport.

After declining a patient’s request, you may have to use empathy to re-establish rapport if it has been damaged. After being told no, your patient may feel frustrated or powerless. Acknowledge their feelings with statements such as “I know this is not want you wanted to hear” or “I can see you are irritated.”Accept your patient’s negative emotions, rather than minimizing them or trying to fix them.^1,3

Closing your practice can be a stressful experience, and it requires careful planning. The process requires numerous steps, such as informing your staff, notifying your patients, closing accounts with your vendors and suppliers, storing medical records, and following applicable federal and state laws for dissolving your practice.^1,2 Many of these steps may require consulting with an attorney, an accountant, and your malpractice insurance carrier.^1,2 Although the recommendations I provide in this article are not exhaustive, when faced with closing your practice, be sure to consider the following factors.

Notify staff and patients.

Select a date to close your practice that will allow you to stop taking new patients, provides adequate leeway for your staff to find new employment and for you to hire temporary staff if needed, ensures you meet your obligations to your staff, such as payroll, and gives you time to set up appropriate continuity of care for your patients. In addition to verbally notifying your patients of your practice’s closing, inform them in writing (whether hand-delivered or via certified mail with return receipt) of the date of the practice’s closure, reason for the closure, cancellation of scheduled appointments after the closure date, referral options, and how they can obtain a copy of their medical records.^1,2 Make sure your patients have an adequate supply of their medications before the closure.

Notify other parties.

Inform all suppliers, vendors, contracted service providers, insurance broker(s) for your practice, and payers (including Medicare and Medicaid, if applicable) of your intent to close your practice.^1,2 Provide payers with a forwarding address to send payments that resolve after your practice closes, and request final invoices from vendors and suppliers so you can close your accounts with them. If you don’t own the building in which your practice is located, notify the building management in accordance with the provisions of your lease.^1,2 Give cancellation notices to utilities and ancillary services (eg, labs, imaging facilities) to which you refer your patients, and notify facilities where you are credentialed and have admitting privileges.^1,2 Inform your state medical licensing board, your state’s controlled substance division, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, because these agencies have requirements regarding changing the status of your medical license (if you decide to retire), continuing or surrendering your state and federal controlled substance registration, and disposal of prescription medications and prescription pads.^1,2 Contact your local post office and delivery services with your change of address.

Address other considerations.

Set up a medical record retention and destruction plan in accordance with state and federal regulations, arrange for the safe storage for both paper and electronic medical records, and make sure storage facilities have experience handling confidential, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-sensitive patient information.^1,2 In addition, establish a process for permanently deleting all HIPAA-sensitive patient information from any equipment that you don’t intend to keep.^1,2

Closing your practice can be a stressful experience, and it requires careful planning. The process requires numerous steps, such as informing your staff, notifying your patients, closing accounts with your vendors and suppliers, storing medical records, and following applicable federal and state laws for dissolving your practice.^1,2 Many of these steps may require consulting with an attorney, an accountant, and your malpractice insurance carrier.^1,2 Although the recommendations I provide in this article are not exhaustive, when faced with closing your practice, be sure to consider the following factors.

Notify staff and patients.

Select a date to close your practice that will allow you to stop taking new patients, provides adequate leeway for your staff to find new employment and for you to hire temporary staff if needed, ensures you meet your obligations to your staff, such as payroll, and gives you time to set up appropriate continuity of care for your patients. In addition to verbally notifying your patients of your practice’s closing, inform them in writing (whether hand-delivered or via certified mail with return receipt) of the date of the practice’s closure, reason for the closure, cancellation of scheduled appointments after the closure date, referral options, and how they can obtain a copy of their medical records.^1,2 Make sure your patients have an adequate supply of their medications before the closure.

Notify other parties.

Inform all suppliers, vendors, contracted service providers, insurance broker(s) for your practice, and payers (including Medicare and Medicaid, if applicable) of your intent to close your practice.^1,2 Provide payers with a forwarding address to send payments that resolve after your practice closes, and request final invoices from vendors and suppliers so you can close your accounts with them. If you don’t own the building in which your practice is located, notify the building management in accordance with the provisions of your lease.^1,2 Give cancellation notices to utilities and ancillary services (eg, labs, imaging facilities) to which you refer your patients, and notify facilities where you are credentialed and have admitting privileges.^1,2 Inform your state medical licensing board, your state’s controlled substance division, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, because these agencies have requirements regarding changing the status of your medical license (if you decide to retire), continuing or surrendering your state and federal controlled substance registration, and disposal of prescription medications and prescription pads.^1,2 Contact your local post office and delivery services with your change of address.

Address other considerations.

Set up a medical record retention and destruction plan in accordance with state and federal regulations, arrange for the safe storage for both paper and electronic medical records, and make sure storage facilities have experience handling confidential, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-sensitive patient information.^1,2 In addition, establish a process for permanently deleting all HIPAA-sensitive patient information from any equipment that you don’t intend to keep.^1,2

Closing your practice can be a stressful experience, and it requires careful planning. The process requires numerous steps, such as informing your staff, notifying your patients, closing accounts with your vendors and suppliers, storing medical records, and following applicable federal and state laws for dissolving your practice.^1,2 Many of these steps may require consulting with an attorney, an accountant, and your malpractice insurance carrier.^1,2 Although the recommendations I provide in this article are not exhaustive, when faced with closing your practice, be sure to consider the following factors.

Notify staff and patients.

Select a date to close your practice that will allow you to stop taking new patients, provides adequate leeway for your staff to find new employment and for you to hire temporary staff if needed, ensures you meet your obligations to your staff, such as payroll, and gives you time to set up appropriate continuity of care for your patients. In addition to verbally notifying your patients of your practice’s closing, inform them in writing (whether hand-delivered or via certified mail with return receipt) of the date of the practice’s closure, reason for the closure, cancellation of scheduled appointments after the closure date, referral options, and how they can obtain a copy of their medical records.^1,2 Make sure your patients have an adequate supply of their medications before the closure.

Notify other parties.

Inform all suppliers, vendors, contracted service providers, insurance broker(s) for your practice, and payers (including Medicare and Medicaid, if applicable) of your intent to close your practice.^1,2 Provide payers with a forwarding address to send payments that resolve after your practice closes, and request final invoices from vendors and suppliers so you can close your accounts with them. If you don’t own the building in which your practice is located, notify the building management in accordance with the provisions of your lease.^1,2 Give cancellation notices to utilities and ancillary services (eg, labs, imaging facilities) to which you refer your patients, and notify facilities where you are credentialed and have admitting privileges.^1,2 Inform your state medical licensing board, your state’s controlled substance division, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, because these agencies have requirements regarding changing the status of your medical license (if you decide to retire), continuing or surrendering your state and federal controlled substance registration, and disposal of prescription medications and prescription pads.^1,2 Contact your local post office and delivery services with your change of address.

Address other considerations.

Set up a medical record retention and destruction plan in accordance with state and federal regulations, arrange for the safe storage for both paper and electronic medical records, and make sure storage facilities have experience handling confidential, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-sensitive patient information.^1,2 In addition, establish a process for permanently deleting all HIPAA-sensitive patient information from any equipment that you don’t intend to keep.^1,2

Recent insights into the epidemiology of atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) has complex risk factors and effects on patients. AD patients experience itch, skin pain, sleep disturbances, and other symptoms that can profoundly impact their quality of life. Yet, little is known about the longitudinal epidemiology and burden of AD in children.

• Johansson et al¹ reported on the ongoing BAMSE cohort study. BAMSE followed 4089 individuals regularly from birth regarding AD and atopic diseases with surveys and clinical examinations; 3055 individuals were assessed at year 24 of follow-up. At 24 years, the 12-month prevalence of AD was 17.8% and more common in women than men (20.5% vs. 14.8%). The point prevalence of AD on clinical examination was 8.0%. These high prevalence estimates are consistent with multiple other recent studies in the United States and globally.^2-4 Prevalence measures a combination of both new-onset (incident) cases and persistence of childhood disease. Importantly, BAMSE found the proportion of adult-onset AD was 16.9%. These results are consistent with previous studies that found substantial rates of adult-onset AD.⁵ Additionally, men were more likely to have AD in the first year of life, but less likely than women to have AD in adolescence and young adulthood.

• Paller et al⁶ recently initiated PEDISTAT, an international, longitudinal 5-year registry of the disease course, comorbidities, treatment, and disease burden children age <12 years with moderate-severe AD. While the study is ongoing, the authors reported the baseline characteristics of the registry. They found that most of the enrolled children were not treated with a systemic therapy, had inadequately controlled disease and a high disease burden. These results emphasize the need for very safe and highly effective systemic therapies for moderate-severe AD in children.

I look forward to seeing the results of these ongoing study and how they will inform our understanding of the epidemiology and comorbidities of AD.

Numerous risk factors for AD have been examined. Infections have been explored as a potential risk factor for AD for more than 30 years.

• Lin et al⁷ conducted a population-based, nationwide case-control study including 5,454 children with AD matched with 16,362 healthy controls without AD. They found that prior to AD diagnosis, all infections including skin infection up to 2 years of age were more frequent in children who subsequently developed AD compared to healthy controls.

• Medeleanu et al⁸ reported findings from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Cohort Study, which included a longitudinal birth cohort of 3,272 parents and infants recruited during pregnancy. They found that infants with moderate-severe vs. no or mild lower respiratory tract infections in the first 18 months of life had significantly higher rates of AD and type 1 allergen polysensitization at age 3 and 5 years. These associations remained significant after adjusting for sex, breastfeeding duration, and parental history of atopy or asthma.

Together, these studies suggest that prevention and expedient treatment of early life infections may lower risk for AD in childhood. Conversely, children at risk for AD who experience certain infections early in life may benefit from increased surveillance for AD and atopic disease.

References

1. Johansson EK et al. Prevalence and characteristics of atopic dermatitis among young adult females and males-report from the Swedish population-based study BAMSE. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jan 15).
2. Silverberg JI. Public health burden and epidemiology of atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(3):283-289.
3. Silverberg JI et al. Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults:  A population-based cross-sectional study. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(3):340-347.
4. Hua T, Silverberg JI. Atopic dermatitis in US adults: Epidemiology, association with marital status, and atopy. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(5):622-624.
5. Lee HH et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and phenotype of adult-onset atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(6):1526-1532.e7.
6. Paller AS et al. Infections in children and adolescents treated with dupilumab in pediatric clinical trials for atopic dermatitis—A pooled analysis of trial data. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 (Jan 26).
7. Lin T-L et al. Early-life infections in association with the development of atopic dermatitis in infancy and early childhood: a nationwide nested case–control study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jan 9).
8. Medeleanu M et al. Moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection in early life is associated with increased risk of polysensitization and atopic dermatitis: Findings from the CHILD Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022 (Jan 16).

Recent insights into the epidemiology of atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) has complex risk factors and effects on patients. AD patients experience itch, skin pain, sleep disturbances, and other symptoms that can profoundly impact their quality of life. Yet, little is known about the longitudinal epidemiology and burden of AD in children.

• Johansson et al¹ reported on the ongoing BAMSE cohort study. BAMSE followed 4089 individuals regularly from birth regarding AD and atopic diseases with surveys and clinical examinations; 3055 individuals were assessed at year 24 of follow-up. At 24 years, the 12-month prevalence of AD was 17.8% and more common in women than men (20.5% vs. 14.8%). The point prevalence of AD on clinical examination was 8.0%. These high prevalence estimates are consistent with multiple other recent studies in the United States and globally.^2-4 Prevalence measures a combination of both new-onset (incident) cases and persistence of childhood disease. Importantly, BAMSE found the proportion of adult-onset AD was 16.9%. These results are consistent with previous studies that found substantial rates of adult-onset AD.⁵ Additionally, men were more likely to have AD in the first year of life, but less likely than women to have AD in adolescence and young adulthood.

• Paller et al⁶ recently initiated PEDISTAT, an international, longitudinal 5-year registry of the disease course, comorbidities, treatment, and disease burden children age <12 years with moderate-severe AD. While the study is ongoing, the authors reported the baseline characteristics of the registry. They found that most of the enrolled children were not treated with a systemic therapy, had inadequately controlled disease and a high disease burden. These results emphasize the need for very safe and highly effective systemic therapies for moderate-severe AD in children.

I look forward to seeing the results of these ongoing study and how they will inform our understanding of the epidemiology and comorbidities of AD.

Numerous risk factors for AD have been examined. Infections have been explored as a potential risk factor for AD for more than 30 years.

• Lin et al⁷ conducted a population-based, nationwide case-control study including 5,454 children with AD matched with 16,362 healthy controls without AD. They found that prior to AD diagnosis, all infections including skin infection up to 2 years of age were more frequent in children who subsequently developed AD compared to healthy controls.

• Medeleanu et al⁸ reported findings from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Cohort Study, which included a longitudinal birth cohort of 3,272 parents and infants recruited during pregnancy. They found that infants with moderate-severe vs. no or mild lower respiratory tract infections in the first 18 months of life had significantly higher rates of AD and type 1 allergen polysensitization at age 3 and 5 years. These associations remained significant after adjusting for sex, breastfeeding duration, and parental history of atopy or asthma.

Together, these studies suggest that prevention and expedient treatment of early life infections may lower risk for AD in childhood. Conversely, children at risk for AD who experience certain infections early in life may benefit from increased surveillance for AD and atopic disease.

References

1. Johansson EK et al. Prevalence and characteristics of atopic dermatitis among young adult females and males-report from the Swedish population-based study BAMSE. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jan 15).
2. Silverberg JI. Public health burden and epidemiology of atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(3):283-289.
3. Silverberg JI et al. Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults:  A population-based cross-sectional study. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(3):340-347.
4. Hua T, Silverberg JI. Atopic dermatitis in US adults: Epidemiology, association with marital status, and atopy. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(5):622-624.
5. Lee HH et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and phenotype of adult-onset atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(6):1526-1532.e7.
6. Paller AS et al. Infections in children and adolescents treated with dupilumab in pediatric clinical trials for atopic dermatitis—A pooled analysis of trial data. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 (Jan 26).
7. Lin T-L et al. Early-life infections in association with the development of atopic dermatitis in infancy and early childhood: a nationwide nested case–control study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jan 9).
8. Medeleanu M et al. Moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection in early life is associated with increased risk of polysensitization and atopic dermatitis: Findings from the CHILD Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022 (Jan 16).

Recent insights into the epidemiology of atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) has complex risk factors and effects on patients. AD patients experience itch, skin pain, sleep disturbances, and other symptoms that can profoundly impact their quality of life. Yet, little is known about the longitudinal epidemiology and burden of AD in children.

• Johansson et al¹ reported on the ongoing BAMSE cohort study. BAMSE followed 4089 individuals regularly from birth regarding AD and atopic diseases with surveys and clinical examinations; 3055 individuals were assessed at year 24 of follow-up. At 24 years, the 12-month prevalence of AD was 17.8% and more common in women than men (20.5% vs. 14.8%). The point prevalence of AD on clinical examination was 8.0%. These high prevalence estimates are consistent with multiple other recent studies in the United States and globally.^2-4 Prevalence measures a combination of both new-onset (incident) cases and persistence of childhood disease. Importantly, BAMSE found the proportion of adult-onset AD was 16.9%. These results are consistent with previous studies that found substantial rates of adult-onset AD.⁵ Additionally, men were more likely to have AD in the first year of life, but less likely than women to have AD in adolescence and young adulthood.

• Paller et al⁶ recently initiated PEDISTAT, an international, longitudinal 5-year registry of the disease course, comorbidities, treatment, and disease burden children age <12 years with moderate-severe AD. While the study is ongoing, the authors reported the baseline characteristics of the registry. They found that most of the enrolled children were not treated with a systemic therapy, had inadequately controlled disease and a high disease burden. These results emphasize the need for very safe and highly effective systemic therapies for moderate-severe AD in children.

I look forward to seeing the results of these ongoing study and how they will inform our understanding of the epidemiology and comorbidities of AD.

Numerous risk factors for AD have been examined. Infections have been explored as a potential risk factor for AD for more than 30 years.

• Lin et al⁷ conducted a population-based, nationwide case-control study including 5,454 children with AD matched with 16,362 healthy controls without AD. They found that prior to AD diagnosis, all infections including skin infection up to 2 years of age were more frequent in children who subsequently developed AD compared to healthy controls.

• Medeleanu et al⁸ reported findings from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Cohort Study, which included a longitudinal birth cohort of 3,272 parents and infants recruited during pregnancy. They found that infants with moderate-severe vs. no or mild lower respiratory tract infections in the first 18 months of life had significantly higher rates of AD and type 1 allergen polysensitization at age 3 and 5 years. These associations remained significant after adjusting for sex, breastfeeding duration, and parental history of atopy or asthma.

Together, these studies suggest that prevention and expedient treatment of early life infections may lower risk for AD in childhood. Conversely, children at risk for AD who experience certain infections early in life may benefit from increased surveillance for AD and atopic disease.

References

1. Johansson EK et al. Prevalence and characteristics of atopic dermatitis among young adult females and males-report from the Swedish population-based study BAMSE. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jan 15).
2. Silverberg JI. Public health burden and epidemiology of atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(3):283-289.
3. Silverberg JI et al. Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults:  A population-based cross-sectional study. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(3):340-347.
4. Hua T, Silverberg JI. Atopic dermatitis in US adults: Epidemiology, association with marital status, and atopy. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(5):622-624.
5. Lee HH et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and phenotype of adult-onset atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(6):1526-1532.e7.
6. Paller AS et al. Infections in children and adolescents treated with dupilumab in pediatric clinical trials for atopic dermatitis—A pooled analysis of trial data. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 (Jan 26).
7. Lin T-L et al. Early-life infections in association with the development of atopic dermatitis in infancy and early childhood: a nationwide nested case–control study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jan 9).
8. Medeleanu M et al. Moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection in early life is associated with increased risk of polysensitization and atopic dermatitis: Findings from the CHILD Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022 (Jan 16).

The theme of the articles this month is migraine and blood vessels. Migraine is a known risk factor for vascular events, it is a known vasodilatory phenomenon, and it is commonly treated with vasoconstrictive medications. Genetic studies are further elucidating the connection between migraine and vascular risk factors. The following studies take this vascular connection to clinical relevance in different ways.

Previous studies have investigated the combination of simvastatin and vitamin D for migraine prevention. Statins have anti-inflammatory properties and migraine can partially be understood as an inflammatory vascular phenomenon. Vitamin D and simvastatin were previously shown to be effective in a randomized trial; this study¹ investigated the combination of atorvastatin with nortriptyline for migraine prevention. Patients were excluded if they had a vitamin D deficiency.

This was a triple-blinded study with one control group, one placebo plus notriptyline group, and one atorvastatin plus nortiptyline group. The nortiptyline dosage was 25mg nightly, and the interventions were given for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in headache day frequency; secondary outcomes were severity and quality of life as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ).

Migraine frequency was seen to be significantly improved after 24 weeks in the statin group; however severity was not significantly affected. Adverse effects were mild and overall no subjects discontinued due to the intervention. Quality of life was also seen to be better in the combination statin/nortriptyline group.

The results of this study are compelling enough to consider the addition of a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) for a patient already on a statin or to start a statin (in the appropriate clinical setting) on a patient already on a TCA. The main limiting factor may be the hesitation to use a TCA medication in an older patient, where the anticholinergic effects may be less predictable.

Caffeine has a controversial place in the headache world. Many patients either use caffeine as a way to treat their migraine attacks, or avoid it completely as they are told it is a migraine trigger. Most headache specialists recommend the avoidance of excessive caffeine use (typically considered >150 mg daily) and tell their patients to be consistent about when they consume caffeine. The effect of caffeine on migraine likely is due to its vasoactive property, specifically that it is vasoconstrictive in nature. These vasoactive properties may also be why many studies investigating cerebrovascular reactivity have been inconclusive in the past.

The authors in this study² recruited patients with episodic migraine and divided them based on caffeine use. All subjects underwent transcranial Doppler testing at baseline and after 3 months, caffeine users were instructed to discontinue caffeine in the interim. Doppler testing looked for differences in BHI (breath holding index) of the bilateral posterior cerebral arteries (PCA), which is a standard at their institution. Subjects were only investigated if they were headache-free and had not used a migraine abortive medication in the previous 48 hours. Preventive medications were not controlled for.

Although the investigators recommended discontinuation of caffeine for the caffeine users, only 28% of that subgroup did discontinue. They then subdivided the group of caffeine users into those whose caffeine intake increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Transcranial Doppler testing was performed in all subgroups.

The investigators found a lower BHI-PCA, or decrease in vasodilatory function, in the subgroups that remained on caffeine. Those who stopped caffeine had improvement in this metric, showing the possible reversibility that discontinuation of caffeine can have. It remains unclear precisely how caffeine is vasoactive, and the effects may be via adenosine receptors, endothelial function, neurotransmitter production, or regulation of the autonomic nervous system. The long-term vascular effects of caffeine are unknown, but they do appear to be reversible after a 3 month period.

Migraine, and especially migraine with aura, is well known as a vascular risk factor. The presence of migraine increases the odds ratio of stroke, myocardial ischemia, deep vein thrombosis and other vascular events significantly. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends avoiding the use of any estrogen containing medication in the presence of migraine, due to estrogen itself being a pro-thrombotic hormone.  The precise mechanism that leads to this increased risk is unknown.

This study investigated the connection between migraine and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). This group observed 415 consecutive patients aged 18-54 who presented for a first time ischemic stroke (other neurovascular events, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage with secondary ischemia and transient ischemic attacks, were excluded). Data regarding these patient’s risks factors was collected and analyzed including elevated body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia.

All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as either magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA), and duplex ultrasound confirmed the images. Atherosclerosis was classified using a standardized system (ASCOD: atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, cardiac pathology, other causes, and dissection) that grades atheroslerotic lesions on a 0-3 scale.

The results may be considered counterintuitive. The presence of migraine was negatively associated with the presence of LAA: a history of migraine did not increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This was even the case when controlling for the traditional vascular risk factors. The authors theorize that likely the association between migraine and stroke and other vascular events is not related to atherosclerosis and may be due to other causes.

A genome-wide association study recently identified a specific polymorphism that was shared by migraine and coronary artery disease. But just like this study, the people with migraine had a negative association with coronary artery disease. If people with migraine do develop stroke or other vascular phenomena they typically present younger and healthier, and this may be why this negative correlation exists.

References

1. Sherafat M et al. The preventive effect of the combination of atorvastatin and nortriptyline in migraine-type headache: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Res. 2022 (Jan 17).
2. Gil Y-E et al. Effect of caffeine and caffeine cessation on cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with migraine. Headache. 2022;62(2):169-75 (Feb 3).
3. Gollion C et al. Migraine and large artery atherosclerosis in young adults with ischemic stroke. Headache. 2022;62(2):191-7 (Feb 5).

The theme of the articles this month is migraine and blood vessels. Migraine is a known risk factor for vascular events, it is a known vasodilatory phenomenon, and it is commonly treated with vasoconstrictive medications. Genetic studies are further elucidating the connection between migraine and vascular risk factors. The following studies take this vascular connection to clinical relevance in different ways.

Previous studies have investigated the combination of simvastatin and vitamin D for migraine prevention. Statins have anti-inflammatory properties and migraine can partially be understood as an inflammatory vascular phenomenon. Vitamin D and simvastatin were previously shown to be effective in a randomized trial; this study¹ investigated the combination of atorvastatin with nortriptyline for migraine prevention. Patients were excluded if they had a vitamin D deficiency.

This was a triple-blinded study with one control group, one placebo plus notriptyline group, and one atorvastatin plus nortiptyline group. The nortiptyline dosage was 25mg nightly, and the interventions were given for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in headache day frequency; secondary outcomes were severity and quality of life as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ).

Migraine frequency was seen to be significantly improved after 24 weeks in the statin group; however severity was not significantly affected. Adverse effects were mild and overall no subjects discontinued due to the intervention. Quality of life was also seen to be better in the combination statin/nortriptyline group.

The results of this study are compelling enough to consider the addition of a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) for a patient already on a statin or to start a statin (in the appropriate clinical setting) on a patient already on a TCA. The main limiting factor may be the hesitation to use a TCA medication in an older patient, where the anticholinergic effects may be less predictable.

Caffeine has a controversial place in the headache world. Many patients either use caffeine as a way to treat their migraine attacks, or avoid it completely as they are told it is a migraine trigger. Most headache specialists recommend the avoidance of excessive caffeine use (typically considered >150 mg daily) and tell their patients to be consistent about when they consume caffeine. The effect of caffeine on migraine likely is due to its vasoactive property, specifically that it is vasoconstrictive in nature. These vasoactive properties may also be why many studies investigating cerebrovascular reactivity have been inconclusive in the past.

The authors in this study² recruited patients with episodic migraine and divided them based on caffeine use. All subjects underwent transcranial Doppler testing at baseline and after 3 months, caffeine users were instructed to discontinue caffeine in the interim. Doppler testing looked for differences in BHI (breath holding index) of the bilateral posterior cerebral arteries (PCA), which is a standard at their institution. Subjects were only investigated if they were headache-free and had not used a migraine abortive medication in the previous 48 hours. Preventive medications were not controlled for.

Although the investigators recommended discontinuation of caffeine for the caffeine users, only 28% of that subgroup did discontinue. They then subdivided the group of caffeine users into those whose caffeine intake increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Transcranial Doppler testing was performed in all subgroups.

The investigators found a lower BHI-PCA, or decrease in vasodilatory function, in the subgroups that remained on caffeine. Those who stopped caffeine had improvement in this metric, showing the possible reversibility that discontinuation of caffeine can have. It remains unclear precisely how caffeine is vasoactive, and the effects may be via adenosine receptors, endothelial function, neurotransmitter production, or regulation of the autonomic nervous system. The long-term vascular effects of caffeine are unknown, but they do appear to be reversible after a 3 month period.

Migraine, and especially migraine with aura, is well known as a vascular risk factor. The presence of migraine increases the odds ratio of stroke, myocardial ischemia, deep vein thrombosis and other vascular events significantly. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends avoiding the use of any estrogen containing medication in the presence of migraine, due to estrogen itself being a pro-thrombotic hormone.  The precise mechanism that leads to this increased risk is unknown.

This study investigated the connection between migraine and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). This group observed 415 consecutive patients aged 18-54 who presented for a first time ischemic stroke (other neurovascular events, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage with secondary ischemia and transient ischemic attacks, were excluded). Data regarding these patient’s risks factors was collected and analyzed including elevated body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia.

All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as either magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA), and duplex ultrasound confirmed the images. Atherosclerosis was classified using a standardized system (ASCOD: atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, cardiac pathology, other causes, and dissection) that grades atheroslerotic lesions on a 0-3 scale.

The results may be considered counterintuitive. The presence of migraine was negatively associated with the presence of LAA: a history of migraine did not increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This was even the case when controlling for the traditional vascular risk factors. The authors theorize that likely the association between migraine and stroke and other vascular events is not related to atherosclerosis and may be due to other causes.

A genome-wide association study recently identified a specific polymorphism that was shared by migraine and coronary artery disease. But just like this study, the people with migraine had a negative association with coronary artery disease. If people with migraine do develop stroke or other vascular phenomena they typically present younger and healthier, and this may be why this negative correlation exists.

References

1. Sherafat M et al. The preventive effect of the combination of atorvastatin and nortriptyline in migraine-type headache: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Res. 2022 (Jan 17).
2. Gil Y-E et al. Effect of caffeine and caffeine cessation on cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with migraine. Headache. 2022;62(2):169-75 (Feb 3).
3. Gollion C et al. Migraine and large artery atherosclerosis in young adults with ischemic stroke. Headache. 2022;62(2):191-7 (Feb 5).

The theme of the articles this month is migraine and blood vessels. Migraine is a known risk factor for vascular events, it is a known vasodilatory phenomenon, and it is commonly treated with vasoconstrictive medications. Genetic studies are further elucidating the connection between migraine and vascular risk factors. The following studies take this vascular connection to clinical relevance in different ways.

Previous studies have investigated the combination of simvastatin and vitamin D for migraine prevention. Statins have anti-inflammatory properties and migraine can partially be understood as an inflammatory vascular phenomenon. Vitamin D and simvastatin were previously shown to be effective in a randomized trial; this study¹ investigated the combination of atorvastatin with nortriptyline for migraine prevention. Patients were excluded if they had a vitamin D deficiency.

This was a triple-blinded study with one control group, one placebo plus notriptyline group, and one atorvastatin plus nortiptyline group. The nortiptyline dosage was 25mg nightly, and the interventions were given for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in headache day frequency; secondary outcomes were severity and quality of life as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ).

Migraine frequency was seen to be significantly improved after 24 weeks in the statin group; however severity was not significantly affected. Adverse effects were mild and overall no subjects discontinued due to the intervention. Quality of life was also seen to be better in the combination statin/nortriptyline group.

The results of this study are compelling enough to consider the addition of a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) for a patient already on a statin or to start a statin (in the appropriate clinical setting) on a patient already on a TCA. The main limiting factor may be the hesitation to use a TCA medication in an older patient, where the anticholinergic effects may be less predictable.

Caffeine has a controversial place in the headache world. Many patients either use caffeine as a way to treat their migraine attacks, or avoid it completely as they are told it is a migraine trigger. Most headache specialists recommend the avoidance of excessive caffeine use (typically considered >150 mg daily) and tell their patients to be consistent about when they consume caffeine. The effect of caffeine on migraine likely is due to its vasoactive property, specifically that it is vasoconstrictive in nature. These vasoactive properties may also be why many studies investigating cerebrovascular reactivity have been inconclusive in the past.

The authors in this study² recruited patients with episodic migraine and divided them based on caffeine use. All subjects underwent transcranial Doppler testing at baseline and after 3 months, caffeine users were instructed to discontinue caffeine in the interim. Doppler testing looked for differences in BHI (breath holding index) of the bilateral posterior cerebral arteries (PCA), which is a standard at their institution. Subjects were only investigated if they were headache-free and had not used a migraine abortive medication in the previous 48 hours. Preventive medications were not controlled for.

Although the investigators recommended discontinuation of caffeine for the caffeine users, only 28% of that subgroup did discontinue. They then subdivided the group of caffeine users into those whose caffeine intake increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Transcranial Doppler testing was performed in all subgroups.

The investigators found a lower BHI-PCA, or decrease in vasodilatory function, in the subgroups that remained on caffeine. Those who stopped caffeine had improvement in this metric, showing the possible reversibility that discontinuation of caffeine can have. It remains unclear precisely how caffeine is vasoactive, and the effects may be via adenosine receptors, endothelial function, neurotransmitter production, or regulation of the autonomic nervous system. The long-term vascular effects of caffeine are unknown, but they do appear to be reversible after a 3 month period.

Migraine, and especially migraine with aura, is well known as a vascular risk factor. The presence of migraine increases the odds ratio of stroke, myocardial ischemia, deep vein thrombosis and other vascular events significantly. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends avoiding the use of any estrogen containing medication in the presence of migraine, due to estrogen itself being a pro-thrombotic hormone.  The precise mechanism that leads to this increased risk is unknown.

This study investigated the connection between migraine and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). This group observed 415 consecutive patients aged 18-54 who presented for a first time ischemic stroke (other neurovascular events, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage with secondary ischemia and transient ischemic attacks, were excluded). Data regarding these patient’s risks factors was collected and analyzed including elevated body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia.

All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as either magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA), and duplex ultrasound confirmed the images. Atherosclerosis was classified using a standardized system (ASCOD: atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, cardiac pathology, other causes, and dissection) that grades atheroslerotic lesions on a 0-3 scale.

The results may be considered counterintuitive. The presence of migraine was negatively associated with the presence of LAA: a history of migraine did not increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This was even the case when controlling for the traditional vascular risk factors. The authors theorize that likely the association between migraine and stroke and other vascular events is not related to atherosclerosis and may be due to other causes.

A genome-wide association study recently identified a specific polymorphism that was shared by migraine and coronary artery disease. But just like this study, the people with migraine had a negative association with coronary artery disease. If people with migraine do develop stroke or other vascular phenomena they typically present younger and healthier, and this may be why this negative correlation exists.

References

1. Sherafat M et al. The preventive effect of the combination of atorvastatin and nortriptyline in migraine-type headache: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Res. 2022 (Jan 17).
2. Gil Y-E et al. Effect of caffeine and caffeine cessation on cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with migraine. Headache. 2022;62(2):169-75 (Feb 3).
3. Gollion C et al. Migraine and large artery atherosclerosis in young adults with ischemic stroke. Headache. 2022;62(2):191-7 (Feb 5).

Mucous membrane pemphigoid with esophageal web stricture. 

Additional laboratory examination showed that his serum anti-BP180 antibody level was high (11.7 U/mL; normal range, <9.0 U/mL). Biopsy specimens taken from the laryngopharyngeal erosion showed subepithelial blister formation and it was consistent with pemphigoid pathologically (Figure D). He did not have cutaneous lesions and was diagnosed with mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP). After performing endoscopic dilation, prednisolone (20 mg/d) was administered orally. Three months after starting the prednisolone treatment, follow-up endoscopy showed improvements of the laryngopharyngeal erosions (Figure E) and esophageal blister on the web. However, esophageal narrowing remained, and thus endoscopic balloon dilation was performed (Figure F-H). Three months after the dilation, the narrowing improved (Figure I). 

Mucous membrane pemphigoid with esophageal web stricture. 

Additional laboratory examination showed that his serum anti-BP180 antibody level was high (11.7 U/mL; normal range, <9.0 U/mL). Biopsy specimens taken from the laryngopharyngeal erosion showed subepithelial blister formation and it was consistent with pemphigoid pathologically (Figure D). He did not have cutaneous lesions and was diagnosed with mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP). After performing endoscopic dilation, prednisolone (20 mg/d) was administered orally. Three months after starting the prednisolone treatment, follow-up endoscopy showed improvements of the laryngopharyngeal erosions (Figure E) and esophageal blister on the web. However, esophageal narrowing remained, and thus endoscopic balloon dilation was performed (Figure F-H). Three months after the dilation, the narrowing improved (Figure I). 

Mucous membrane pemphigoid with esophageal web stricture. 

Additional laboratory examination showed that his serum anti-BP180 antibody level was high (11.7 U/mL; normal range, <9.0 U/mL). Biopsy specimens taken from the laryngopharyngeal erosion showed subepithelial blister formation and it was consistent with pemphigoid pathologically (Figure D). He did not have cutaneous lesions and was diagnosed with mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP). After performing endoscopic dilation, prednisolone (20 mg/d) was administered orally. Three months after starting the prednisolone treatment, follow-up endoscopy showed improvements of the laryngopharyngeal erosions (Figure E) and esophageal blister on the web. However, esophageal narrowing remained, and thus endoscopic balloon dilation was performed (Figure F-H). Three months after the dilation, the narrowing improved (Figure I). 

What is the best test for the diagnosis of acute hepatitis A infection?

Continue to the answer...

The single best test for the diagnosis of acute hepatitis A infection is detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM)–specific antibody to the virus.

What is the best test for the diagnosis of acute hepatitis A infection?

Continue to the answer...

The single best test for the diagnosis of acute hepatitis A infection is detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM)–specific antibody to the virus.

What is the best test for the diagnosis of acute hepatitis A infection?

Continue to the answer...

The single best test for the diagnosis of acute hepatitis A infection is detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM)–specific antibody to the virus.

The influence of sex and gender on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) continues to be of interest. Using data from the Dutch south-west Early Psoriatic Arthritis cohort (DEPAR), Passia et al¹assessed sex-related differences in demographics, disease characteristics, and evolution over 1 year in 273 men and 294 women newly diagnosed with PsA. They found that at baseline, women had a significantly longer duration of symptoms, higher tender joint count and enthesitis, higher disease activity, higher levels of pain, more severe limitations in function and worse quality of life. During the 1 year follow up, composite measures of disease activity declined in men and women, but women continued to have higher levels than men. At the end of 1 year, fewer women achieved the criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA). Thus, the disease burden of PsA was higher in women vs. men at all time points and even after 1 year of standard-of-care treatment. Sex-specific treatment strategies might help a higher proportion of women achieve MDA.

Although, enthesitis is believed to be a primary pathogenetic lesion in PsA, the relationship between active enthesitis and disease severity as measured by the presence of joint erosions is less well studied. In a cross-sectional study of 104 PsA patients, Smerilli et al² explored the association between ultrasound (US) entheseal abnormalities and the presence of US detected bone erosions in PsA joints. At least 1 joint bone erosion was found in 45.2% of patients and was associated with power Doppler signal at enthesis (odds ratio [OR] 1.74; P < .01), entheseal bone erosions (OR 3.17; P = .01), and greyscale synovitis (OR 2.59; P = .02). Thus, Doppler signal and bone erosions at entheses indicate more severe PsA and patients with such abnormalities should therefore be treated aggressively.

Comorbidities and associated conditions were a focus of several publications last month. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with inflammatory diseases, including PsA. In a retrospective cohort study including 5,275 patients with newly diagnosed PsA, Gazitt et al³ assessed the association between PsA and VTE events using a large population-based database in Israel. During follow-up, 1.2% vs. 0.8% patients in the PsA vs. control group were diagnosed with VTE, but this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.27; P = .16) with only older age (aHR 1.08; P < .0001) and history of VTE (aHR 31.63; P < .0001) remaining associated with an increased risk for VTE. Thus, VTE in patients with PsA may be associated with underlying comorbidities rather than PsA per se. In another study, Harris et al⁴demonstrated that PsA was associated with increased risk of endometriosis. In an analysis of 4112 patients with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis from the Nurses’ Health Study II, they found that psoriasis with concomitant PsA was associated with increased risk for subsequent endometriosis (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.23-3.30), which persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities. Finally, in a cross-sectional study using data from 1862 juvenile PsA (jPsA) patients (122 [6.6%] of whom developed uveitis) in the German National Pediatric Rheumatological Database, Walscheid et al⁵ showed that patients with jPsA were more likely to develop uveitis if they were diagnosed with PsA at a younger age or were antinuclear antibody positive, with higher disease activity being the only factor significantly associated with the presence of uveitis.

References

1.    Passia E et al. Sex-specific differences and how to handle them in early psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):22 (Jan 11). 
2.    Smerilli G et al. Doppler signal and bone erosions at the enthesis are independently associated with ultrasound joint erosive damage in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). 
3.    Gazitt T et al. The association between psoriatic arthritis and venous thromboembolism: a population-based cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):16 (Jan 7). 
4.    Harris HR et al. Endometriosis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2022 (Jan 13). 
5.    Walscheid K et al. Occurrence and risk factors of uveitis in juvenile psoriatic arthritis: Data from a population-based nationwide study in Germany. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Jan 15).

The influence of sex and gender on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) continues to be of interest. Using data from the Dutch south-west Early Psoriatic Arthritis cohort (DEPAR), Passia et al¹assessed sex-related differences in demographics, disease characteristics, and evolution over 1 year in 273 men and 294 women newly diagnosed with PsA. They found that at baseline, women had a significantly longer duration of symptoms, higher tender joint count and enthesitis, higher disease activity, higher levels of pain, more severe limitations in function and worse quality of life. During the 1 year follow up, composite measures of disease activity declined in men and women, but women continued to have higher levels than men. At the end of 1 year, fewer women achieved the criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA). Thus, the disease burden of PsA was higher in women vs. men at all time points and even after 1 year of standard-of-care treatment. Sex-specific treatment strategies might help a higher proportion of women achieve MDA.

Although, enthesitis is believed to be a primary pathogenetic lesion in PsA, the relationship between active enthesitis and disease severity as measured by the presence of joint erosions is less well studied. In a cross-sectional study of 104 PsA patients, Smerilli et al² explored the association between ultrasound (US) entheseal abnormalities and the presence of US detected bone erosions in PsA joints. At least 1 joint bone erosion was found in 45.2% of patients and was associated with power Doppler signal at enthesis (odds ratio [OR] 1.74; P < .01), entheseal bone erosions (OR 3.17; P = .01), and greyscale synovitis (OR 2.59; P = .02). Thus, Doppler signal and bone erosions at entheses indicate more severe PsA and patients with such abnormalities should therefore be treated aggressively.

Comorbidities and associated conditions were a focus of several publications last month. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with inflammatory diseases, including PsA. In a retrospective cohort study including 5,275 patients with newly diagnosed PsA, Gazitt et al³ assessed the association between PsA and VTE events using a large population-based database in Israel. During follow-up, 1.2% vs. 0.8% patients in the PsA vs. control group were diagnosed with VTE, but this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.27; P = .16) with only older age (aHR 1.08; P < .0001) and history of VTE (aHR 31.63; P < .0001) remaining associated with an increased risk for VTE. Thus, VTE in patients with PsA may be associated with underlying comorbidities rather than PsA per se. In another study, Harris et al⁴demonstrated that PsA was associated with increased risk of endometriosis. In an analysis of 4112 patients with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis from the Nurses’ Health Study II, they found that psoriasis with concomitant PsA was associated with increased risk for subsequent endometriosis (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.23-3.30), which persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities. Finally, in a cross-sectional study using data from 1862 juvenile PsA (jPsA) patients (122 [6.6%] of whom developed uveitis) in the German National Pediatric Rheumatological Database, Walscheid et al⁵ showed that patients with jPsA were more likely to develop uveitis if they were diagnosed with PsA at a younger age or were antinuclear antibody positive, with higher disease activity being the only factor significantly associated with the presence of uveitis.

References

1.    Passia E et al. Sex-specific differences and how to handle them in early psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):22 (Jan 11). 
2.    Smerilli G et al. Doppler signal and bone erosions at the enthesis are independently associated with ultrasound joint erosive damage in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). 
3.    Gazitt T et al. The association between psoriatic arthritis and venous thromboembolism: a population-based cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):16 (Jan 7). 
4.    Harris HR et al. Endometriosis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2022 (Jan 13). 
5.    Walscheid K et al. Occurrence and risk factors of uveitis in juvenile psoriatic arthritis: Data from a population-based nationwide study in Germany. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Jan 15).

The influence of sex and gender on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) continues to be of interest. Using data from the Dutch south-west Early Psoriatic Arthritis cohort (DEPAR), Passia et al¹assessed sex-related differences in demographics, disease characteristics, and evolution over 1 year in 273 men and 294 women newly diagnosed with PsA. They found that at baseline, women had a significantly longer duration of symptoms, higher tender joint count and enthesitis, higher disease activity, higher levels of pain, more severe limitations in function and worse quality of life. During the 1 year follow up, composite measures of disease activity declined in men and women, but women continued to have higher levels than men. At the end of 1 year, fewer women achieved the criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA). Thus, the disease burden of PsA was higher in women vs. men at all time points and even after 1 year of standard-of-care treatment. Sex-specific treatment strategies might help a higher proportion of women achieve MDA.

Although, enthesitis is believed to be a primary pathogenetic lesion in PsA, the relationship between active enthesitis and disease severity as measured by the presence of joint erosions is less well studied. In a cross-sectional study of 104 PsA patients, Smerilli et al² explored the association between ultrasound (US) entheseal abnormalities and the presence of US detected bone erosions in PsA joints. At least 1 joint bone erosion was found in 45.2% of patients and was associated with power Doppler signal at enthesis (odds ratio [OR] 1.74; P < .01), entheseal bone erosions (OR 3.17; P = .01), and greyscale synovitis (OR 2.59; P = .02). Thus, Doppler signal and bone erosions at entheses indicate more severe PsA and patients with such abnormalities should therefore be treated aggressively.

Comorbidities and associated conditions were a focus of several publications last month. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with inflammatory diseases, including PsA. In a retrospective cohort study including 5,275 patients with newly diagnosed PsA, Gazitt et al³ assessed the association between PsA and VTE events using a large population-based database in Israel. During follow-up, 1.2% vs. 0.8% patients in the PsA vs. control group were diagnosed with VTE, but this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.27; P = .16) with only older age (aHR 1.08; P < .0001) and history of VTE (aHR 31.63; P < .0001) remaining associated with an increased risk for VTE. Thus, VTE in patients with PsA may be associated with underlying comorbidities rather than PsA per se. In another study, Harris et al⁴demonstrated that PsA was associated with increased risk of endometriosis. In an analysis of 4112 patients with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis from the Nurses’ Health Study II, they found that psoriasis with concomitant PsA was associated with increased risk for subsequent endometriosis (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.23-3.30), which persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities. Finally, in a cross-sectional study using data from 1862 juvenile PsA (jPsA) patients (122 [6.6%] of whom developed uveitis) in the German National Pediatric Rheumatological Database, Walscheid et al⁵ showed that patients with jPsA were more likely to develop uveitis if they were diagnosed with PsA at a younger age or were antinuclear antibody positive, with higher disease activity being the only factor significantly associated with the presence of uveitis.

References

1.    Passia E et al. Sex-specific differences and how to handle them in early psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):22 (Jan 11). 
2.    Smerilli G et al. Doppler signal and bone erosions at the enthesis are independently associated with ultrasound joint erosive damage in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). 
3.    Gazitt T et al. The association between psoriatic arthritis and venous thromboembolism: a population-based cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):16 (Jan 7). 
4.    Harris HR et al. Endometriosis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2022 (Jan 13). 
5.    Walscheid K et al. Occurrence and risk factors of uveitis in juvenile psoriatic arthritis: Data from a population-based nationwide study in Germany. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Jan 15).