M. Alexander Otto

The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.

Patients were most infectious at the onset of symptoms, when they spiked a fever and started coughing, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.

Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.

Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.

The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.

Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.

It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.

[email protected]

The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.

Patients were most infectious at the onset of symptoms, when they spiked a fever and started coughing, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.

Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.

Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.

The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.

Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.

It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.

[email protected]

The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.

Patients were most infectious at the onset of symptoms, when they spiked a fever and started coughing, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.

Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.

Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.

The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.

Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.

It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The problem with doing a breath test for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth before starting rifaximin (Xifaxan) for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is that you can’t trust the results, according to IBS expert Lin Chang, MD, a professor and vice chief of the division of digestive diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Rifaximin is an antibiotic that works in the intestines but is not absorbed by the body, and is approved for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). It’s a second-line option for moderate illness when diet, OTC medications, and other easier options don’t do the trick. Endpoints were met by about 10% more patients on rifaximin than placebo in randomized trials, perhaps by resetting gut microbiota.

“It was a small therapeutic gain, but it was statistically significant,” Dr. Chang said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. In her own practice, she said it sometimes helps even with bloating and abdominal distension, two of the most vexing problems in IBS-D.

However, symptoms come back after 3-6 months, and prices approach $2,000 for the 2-week IBS-D course. Insurance doesn’t always fully cover it, and the Food and Drug Administration has capped treatments at three.

That’s left providers wondering what to do when people ask for rifaximin after seeing it advertised and eager for some way to predict if it will work or not. Some clinicians have turned to a breath test for small-intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) before prescribing rifaximin because there is evidence that SIBO contributes to IBS-D, but others have not. It’s a contentious issue in IBS medicine, Dr. Chang said.

A recent open-label study funded by rifaximin maker Salix Pharmaceuticals made a case for testing. Among 93 IBS-D patients, 60% with a positive breath test at baseline had reduced pain, diarrhea, and other symptoms after 550 mg three times daily for 2 weeks, versus 26% with a negative test (Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec;114[12]:1886-93).

Even so, when asked after her IBS presentation, Dr. Chang said she doesn’t breath test because it doesn’t make sense. Even with positive results, “you don’t really know if they have SIBO or not. Sometimes healthy controls have a positive test, and some people with IBS who end up responding to rifaximin have a negative breath test. It’s up to you, [but] it doesn’t correlate” with outcomes, she said.

Indeed, a letter in response to the study made a strong case that nine of the subjects should have been counted as having a negative, not positive, breath test, and if they had, the difference in outcome would have disappeared (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000569).

Dr. Chang has opted for an empiric approach. “I just treat patients who meet the criteria used in the clinical trials,” such as moderate abdominal pain and bloating, she said (for example, N Engl J Med. 2011 Jan 6;364[1]:22-32).

And she doesn’t push if people can’t afford rifaximin. Some turn to other antibiotics, like metronidazole (Flagyl) or ciprofloxacin (Cipro), which are absorbed in the GI tract, but Dr. Chang said symptoms will recur after a few months regardless of the antibiotic. “You don’t want all these young women to be given antibiotics over and over again. Their symptoms are just going to come back, and you are going to have to learn how to treat them anyway,” she said.

Instead, she moves on to other options when patients are at the point where they need prescription pharmaceuticals. One of her top choices is the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline. It helps with the pain; the anticholinergic effects counter the diarrhea; and the sedative effects help patients who have a hard time sleeping. Sleep problems make IBS-D symptoms worse, Dr. Chang said.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The problem with doing a breath test for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth before starting rifaximin (Xifaxan) for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is that you can’t trust the results, according to IBS expert Lin Chang, MD, a professor and vice chief of the division of digestive diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Rifaximin is an antibiotic that works in the intestines but is not absorbed by the body, and is approved for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). It’s a second-line option for moderate illness when diet, OTC medications, and other easier options don’t do the trick. Endpoints were met by about 10% more patients on rifaximin than placebo in randomized trials, perhaps by resetting gut microbiota.

“It was a small therapeutic gain, but it was statistically significant,” Dr. Chang said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. In her own practice, she said it sometimes helps even with bloating and abdominal distension, two of the most vexing problems in IBS-D.

However, symptoms come back after 3-6 months, and prices approach $2,000 for the 2-week IBS-D course. Insurance doesn’t always fully cover it, and the Food and Drug Administration has capped treatments at three.

That’s left providers wondering what to do when people ask for rifaximin after seeing it advertised and eager for some way to predict if it will work or not. Some clinicians have turned to a breath test for small-intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) before prescribing rifaximin because there is evidence that SIBO contributes to IBS-D, but others have not. It’s a contentious issue in IBS medicine, Dr. Chang said.

A recent open-label study funded by rifaximin maker Salix Pharmaceuticals made a case for testing. Among 93 IBS-D patients, 60% with a positive breath test at baseline had reduced pain, diarrhea, and other symptoms after 550 mg three times daily for 2 weeks, versus 26% with a negative test (Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec;114[12]:1886-93).

Even so, when asked after her IBS presentation, Dr. Chang said she doesn’t breath test because it doesn’t make sense. Even with positive results, “you don’t really know if they have SIBO or not. Sometimes healthy controls have a positive test, and some people with IBS who end up responding to rifaximin have a negative breath test. It’s up to you, [but] it doesn’t correlate” with outcomes, she said.

Indeed, a letter in response to the study made a strong case that nine of the subjects should have been counted as having a negative, not positive, breath test, and if they had, the difference in outcome would have disappeared (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000569).

Dr. Chang has opted for an empiric approach. “I just treat patients who meet the criteria used in the clinical trials,” such as moderate abdominal pain and bloating, she said (for example, N Engl J Med. 2011 Jan 6;364[1]:22-32).

And she doesn’t push if people can’t afford rifaximin. Some turn to other antibiotics, like metronidazole (Flagyl) or ciprofloxacin (Cipro), which are absorbed in the GI tract, but Dr. Chang said symptoms will recur after a few months regardless of the antibiotic. “You don’t want all these young women to be given antibiotics over and over again. Their symptoms are just going to come back, and you are going to have to learn how to treat them anyway,” she said.

Instead, she moves on to other options when patients are at the point where they need prescription pharmaceuticals. One of her top choices is the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline. It helps with the pain; the anticholinergic effects counter the diarrhea; and the sedative effects help patients who have a hard time sleeping. Sleep problems make IBS-D symptoms worse, Dr. Chang said.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The problem with doing a breath test for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth before starting rifaximin (Xifaxan) for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is that you can’t trust the results, according to IBS expert Lin Chang, MD, a professor and vice chief of the division of digestive diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Rifaximin is an antibiotic that works in the intestines but is not absorbed by the body, and is approved for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). It’s a second-line option for moderate illness when diet, OTC medications, and other easier options don’t do the trick. Endpoints were met by about 10% more patients on rifaximin than placebo in randomized trials, perhaps by resetting gut microbiota.

“It was a small therapeutic gain, but it was statistically significant,” Dr. Chang said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. In her own practice, she said it sometimes helps even with bloating and abdominal distension, two of the most vexing problems in IBS-D.

However, symptoms come back after 3-6 months, and prices approach $2,000 for the 2-week IBS-D course. Insurance doesn’t always fully cover it, and the Food and Drug Administration has capped treatments at three.

That’s left providers wondering what to do when people ask for rifaximin after seeing it advertised and eager for some way to predict if it will work or not. Some clinicians have turned to a breath test for small-intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) before prescribing rifaximin because there is evidence that SIBO contributes to IBS-D, but others have not. It’s a contentious issue in IBS medicine, Dr. Chang said.

A recent open-label study funded by rifaximin maker Salix Pharmaceuticals made a case for testing. Among 93 IBS-D patients, 60% with a positive breath test at baseline had reduced pain, diarrhea, and other symptoms after 550 mg three times daily for 2 weeks, versus 26% with a negative test (Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec;114[12]:1886-93).

Even so, when asked after her IBS presentation, Dr. Chang said she doesn’t breath test because it doesn’t make sense. Even with positive results, “you don’t really know if they have SIBO or not. Sometimes healthy controls have a positive test, and some people with IBS who end up responding to rifaximin have a negative breath test. It’s up to you, [but] it doesn’t correlate” with outcomes, she said.

Indeed, a letter in response to the study made a strong case that nine of the subjects should have been counted as having a negative, not positive, breath test, and if they had, the difference in outcome would have disappeared (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000569).

Dr. Chang has opted for an empiric approach. “I just treat patients who meet the criteria used in the clinical trials,” such as moderate abdominal pain and bloating, she said (for example, N Engl J Med. 2011 Jan 6;364[1]:22-32).

And she doesn’t push if people can’t afford rifaximin. Some turn to other antibiotics, like metronidazole (Flagyl) or ciprofloxacin (Cipro), which are absorbed in the GI tract, but Dr. Chang said symptoms will recur after a few months regardless of the antibiotic. “You don’t want all these young women to be given antibiotics over and over again. Their symptoms are just going to come back, and you are going to have to learn how to treat them anyway,” she said.

Instead, she moves on to other options when patients are at the point where they need prescription pharmaceuticals. One of her top choices is the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline. It helps with the pain; the anticholinergic effects counter the diarrhea; and the sedative effects help patients who have a hard time sleeping. Sleep problems make IBS-D symptoms worse, Dr. Chang said.

[email protected]

Men with HIV are likely prone to the same cardiovascular risks from testosterone therapy as other men, according to new research.

There’s no reason to think they weren’t, but it hadn’t been demonstrated until now, and men with HIV are already at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The take-home message is that “it would be prudent for clinicians to monitor closely for cardiovascular risk factors and recommend intervention to lower cardiovascular risk among men with HIV on or considering testosterone therapy,” lead investigator Sabina Haberlen, PhD, an assistant scientist in the infectious disease epidemiology division of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a poster that was presented as part of the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers chose to hold a virtual meeting because concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Testosterone therapy is common among middle-aged and older men with HIV to counter the hypogonadism associated with infection. The investigators turned to the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study – a 30-year, four-city study of HIV-1 infection in men who have sex with men – to gauge its effect.

The 300 men in the study had a baseline coronary CT angiogram in 2010-2013 and a repeat study a mean of 4.5 years later. They had no history of coronary interventions or kidney dysfunction at baseline and were aged 40-70 years, with a median age of 51 years. About 70% reported never using testosterone, 8% were former users before entering the study, 7% started using testosterone between the two CTs, and 15% entered the study on testosterone and stayed on it.

Adjusting for age, race, cardiovascular risk factors, baseline serum testosterone levels, and other potential confounders, the risk of significant coronary artery calcium (CAC) progression was 2 times greater among continuous users (P = .03) and 2.4 times greater among new users (P = .01), compared with former users, who the investigators used as a control group because, at some point, they too had indications for testosterone replacement and so were more medically similar than never users.

The risk of noncalcified plaque volume progression was also more than twice as high among ongoing users, and elevated, although not significantly so, among ongoing users.

In short, “our findings are similar to those on subclinical atherosclerotic progression” in trials of older men in the general population on testosterone replacement, Dr. Haberlen said.

About half the subjects were white, 41% were at high risk for cardiovascular disease, 91% were on antiretroviral therapy, and 81% had undetectable HIV viral loads. Median total testosterone was 606 ng/dL. CAC progression was defined by incident CAC, at least a 10 Agatston unit/year increase if the baseline CAC score was 1-100, and a 10% or more annual increase if the baseline score was above 100.

Lower baseline serum testosterone was also associated with an increased risk of CAC progression, although not progression of noncalcified plaques.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Haberlen didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberlen S et al. CROI 2020, Abstract 662.

Men with HIV are likely prone to the same cardiovascular risks from testosterone therapy as other men, according to new research.

There’s no reason to think they weren’t, but it hadn’t been demonstrated until now, and men with HIV are already at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The take-home message is that “it would be prudent for clinicians to monitor closely for cardiovascular risk factors and recommend intervention to lower cardiovascular risk among men with HIV on or considering testosterone therapy,” lead investigator Sabina Haberlen, PhD, an assistant scientist in the infectious disease epidemiology division of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a poster that was presented as part of the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers chose to hold a virtual meeting because concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Testosterone therapy is common among middle-aged and older men with HIV to counter the hypogonadism associated with infection. The investigators turned to the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study – a 30-year, four-city study of HIV-1 infection in men who have sex with men – to gauge its effect.

The 300 men in the study had a baseline coronary CT angiogram in 2010-2013 and a repeat study a mean of 4.5 years later. They had no history of coronary interventions or kidney dysfunction at baseline and were aged 40-70 years, with a median age of 51 years. About 70% reported never using testosterone, 8% were former users before entering the study, 7% started using testosterone between the two CTs, and 15% entered the study on testosterone and stayed on it.

Adjusting for age, race, cardiovascular risk factors, baseline serum testosterone levels, and other potential confounders, the risk of significant coronary artery calcium (CAC) progression was 2 times greater among continuous users (P = .03) and 2.4 times greater among new users (P = .01), compared with former users, who the investigators used as a control group because, at some point, they too had indications for testosterone replacement and so were more medically similar than never users.

The risk of noncalcified plaque volume progression was also more than twice as high among ongoing users, and elevated, although not significantly so, among ongoing users.

In short, “our findings are similar to those on subclinical atherosclerotic progression” in trials of older men in the general population on testosterone replacement, Dr. Haberlen said.

About half the subjects were white, 41% were at high risk for cardiovascular disease, 91% were on antiretroviral therapy, and 81% had undetectable HIV viral loads. Median total testosterone was 606 ng/dL. CAC progression was defined by incident CAC, at least a 10 Agatston unit/year increase if the baseline CAC score was 1-100, and a 10% or more annual increase if the baseline score was above 100.

Lower baseline serum testosterone was also associated with an increased risk of CAC progression, although not progression of noncalcified plaques.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Haberlen didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberlen S et al. CROI 2020, Abstract 662.

Men with HIV are likely prone to the same cardiovascular risks from testosterone therapy as other men, according to new research.

There’s no reason to think they weren’t, but it hadn’t been demonstrated until now, and men with HIV are already at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The take-home message is that “it would be prudent for clinicians to monitor closely for cardiovascular risk factors and recommend intervention to lower cardiovascular risk among men with HIV on or considering testosterone therapy,” lead investigator Sabina Haberlen, PhD, an assistant scientist in the infectious disease epidemiology division of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a poster that was presented as part of the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers chose to hold a virtual meeting because concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Testosterone therapy is common among middle-aged and older men with HIV to counter the hypogonadism associated with infection. The investigators turned to the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study – a 30-year, four-city study of HIV-1 infection in men who have sex with men – to gauge its effect.

The 300 men in the study had a baseline coronary CT angiogram in 2010-2013 and a repeat study a mean of 4.5 years later. They had no history of coronary interventions or kidney dysfunction at baseline and were aged 40-70 years, with a median age of 51 years. About 70% reported never using testosterone, 8% were former users before entering the study, 7% started using testosterone between the two CTs, and 15% entered the study on testosterone and stayed on it.

Adjusting for age, race, cardiovascular risk factors, baseline serum testosterone levels, and other potential confounders, the risk of significant coronary artery calcium (CAC) progression was 2 times greater among continuous users (P = .03) and 2.4 times greater among new users (P = .01), compared with former users, who the investigators used as a control group because, at some point, they too had indications for testosterone replacement and so were more medically similar than never users.

The risk of noncalcified plaque volume progression was also more than twice as high among ongoing users, and elevated, although not significantly so, among ongoing users.

In short, “our findings are similar to those on subclinical atherosclerotic progression” in trials of older men in the general population on testosterone replacement, Dr. Haberlen said.

About half the subjects were white, 41% were at high risk for cardiovascular disease, 91% were on antiretroviral therapy, and 81% had undetectable HIV viral loads. Median total testosterone was 606 ng/dL. CAC progression was defined by incident CAC, at least a 10 Agatston unit/year increase if the baseline CAC score was 1-100, and a 10% or more annual increase if the baseline score was above 100.

Lower baseline serum testosterone was also associated with an increased risk of CAC progression, although not progression of noncalcified plaques.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Haberlen didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberlen S et al. CROI 2020, Abstract 662.

Economically, the modest safety benefit of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (Descovy) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis won’t justify paying thousands of dollars more for it when tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (Truvada) becomes available as a generic in a year or so, according to a population level cost-effectiveness analysis presented at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers held a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Those benefits will translate to a health savings worth only a few hundred dollars over the likely generic price, said investigators led by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

In a press statement, Gilead, which makes both medications, said it “strongly believes that the analysis ... is flawed, leading to inaccurate conclusions that severely underestimate the value of Descovy. The method and validation of the models, incomplete clinical data analyzed and the assumptions around potential pricing associated with a generic alternative to Truvada ... are inadequate to enable a sufficiently robust analysis.”

The company did not go into details about what exactly might have been off about the analysis.

Approved in Oct. 2019, tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (also known as F/TAF) is the first new option for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) since tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) was approved in 2012; F/TDF is going off patent soon.

Amid a robust marketing campaign, the new medication has already captured 25% of the PrEP market, and Gilead expects up to 45% of patients to switch to F/TAF before generic F/TDF becomes available.

That worries the investigators. “At the current FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] price of $16,600 per year,” a nationwide PrEP program that uses F/TAF “would consume the entire $900.8 million federal budget for HIV prevention several times over ... If branded F/TAF drives out generic F/TDF,” rates of PrEP coverage “could decrease, and F/TAF could end up causing more avoidable HIV transmissions” than it prevents. “Given the very small, albeit statistically significant, differences in surrogate [safety] markers, without evidence of clinical significance, there is no urgency and no reason to switch PrEP regimens now,” they said. Both medications were equally effective in preventing HIV transmission in Gilead’s head-to-head phase 3 trial, but there was an a mean of about a 4 mL/min difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 48 and about a 2% difference in hip and spine density at week 96, both favoring F/TAF. Marketing highlights those differences.

The investigators wanted to see how much they are worth, so they estimated savings from a possibly lower rate of bone fractures and renal failure with F/TAF and juxtaposed it with its cost and the anticipated cost of generic F/TDF at half-price, $8,300/patient-year.

They gave F/TAF the benefit of the doubt, skewing their model toward maximal harm and cost from F/TDF toxicity, and omitting the cost of increased lipid levels, weight gain, and other possible F/TAF adverse events.

In the end, they concluded that “the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year” over generic F/TDF based on toxicity differences. “Payers should consider the $370 premium ceiling estimated here in assessing whether to recommend that patients switch to F/TAF.”

The team calculated that F/TAF would prevent a maximum of 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease among 123,610 U.S. men who have sex with men treated for 5 years. That translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life-year, far above the $100,000 threshold considered acceptable in the United States.

“In the presence of a generic alternative, the current price of F/TAF would have to be reduced by over $7,900/year for F/TAF to satisfy generally accepted standards of societal value. If F/TDF can achieve the 75% price reduction that is commonly observed when generic competition ensues (that is, a cost of $4,150/year), the F/TAF price would need to be no higher than $4,520 to demonstrate value on the basis of cost-effectiveness,” the investigators said.

For older patients at unusually high risk for renal disease or bone-related adverse events, the switch from F/TDF to F/TAF would have greater clinical effect and benefit. Even in this population, however, it would be difficult to defend a price greater than $800 over the cost of the generic alternative,” they said.

“The message seems clear that the current cost of F/TAF does not justify wholesale conversion to F/TAF as the first-line agent for all PrEP-eligible patients,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, and Wendy Armstrong, MD, infectious disease professors at Emory University, Atlanta, in an editorial. “For PrEP-eligible persons at low risk for fracture and renal disease, it is very hard to justify use of F/TAF knowing that F/TDF will soon be generic” (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M20-0799).

“Successful PrEP scale-up in other countries was made possible by drug costs that are less than $100/month in most countries. In the United States, without drastic reductions in the cost of PrEP, which may be achievable with generic F/TDF ... we will fail to avert otherwise preventable new HIV transmissions,” they said.

The study was simultaneously published online (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478).

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. The investigators and editorialists didn’t have any industry disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Walensky RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478.

Economically, the modest safety benefit of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (Descovy) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis won’t justify paying thousands of dollars more for it when tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (Truvada) becomes available as a generic in a year or so, according to a population level cost-effectiveness analysis presented at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers held a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Those benefits will translate to a health savings worth only a few hundred dollars over the likely generic price, said investigators led by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

In a press statement, Gilead, which makes both medications, said it “strongly believes that the analysis ... is flawed, leading to inaccurate conclusions that severely underestimate the value of Descovy. The method and validation of the models, incomplete clinical data analyzed and the assumptions around potential pricing associated with a generic alternative to Truvada ... are inadequate to enable a sufficiently robust analysis.”

The company did not go into details about what exactly might have been off about the analysis.

Approved in Oct. 2019, tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (also known as F/TAF) is the first new option for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) since tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) was approved in 2012; F/TDF is going off patent soon.

Amid a robust marketing campaign, the new medication has already captured 25% of the PrEP market, and Gilead expects up to 45% of patients to switch to F/TAF before generic F/TDF becomes available.

That worries the investigators. “At the current FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] price of $16,600 per year,” a nationwide PrEP program that uses F/TAF “would consume the entire $900.8 million federal budget for HIV prevention several times over ... If branded F/TAF drives out generic F/TDF,” rates of PrEP coverage “could decrease, and F/TAF could end up causing more avoidable HIV transmissions” than it prevents. “Given the very small, albeit statistically significant, differences in surrogate [safety] markers, without evidence of clinical significance, there is no urgency and no reason to switch PrEP regimens now,” they said. Both medications were equally effective in preventing HIV transmission in Gilead’s head-to-head phase 3 trial, but there was an a mean of about a 4 mL/min difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 48 and about a 2% difference in hip and spine density at week 96, both favoring F/TAF. Marketing highlights those differences.

The investigators wanted to see how much they are worth, so they estimated savings from a possibly lower rate of bone fractures and renal failure with F/TAF and juxtaposed it with its cost and the anticipated cost of generic F/TDF at half-price, $8,300/patient-year.

They gave F/TAF the benefit of the doubt, skewing their model toward maximal harm and cost from F/TDF toxicity, and omitting the cost of increased lipid levels, weight gain, and other possible F/TAF adverse events.

In the end, they concluded that “the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year” over generic F/TDF based on toxicity differences. “Payers should consider the $370 premium ceiling estimated here in assessing whether to recommend that patients switch to F/TAF.”

The team calculated that F/TAF would prevent a maximum of 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease among 123,610 U.S. men who have sex with men treated for 5 years. That translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life-year, far above the $100,000 threshold considered acceptable in the United States.

“In the presence of a generic alternative, the current price of F/TAF would have to be reduced by over $7,900/year for F/TAF to satisfy generally accepted standards of societal value. If F/TDF can achieve the 75% price reduction that is commonly observed when generic competition ensues (that is, a cost of $4,150/year), the F/TAF price would need to be no higher than $4,520 to demonstrate value on the basis of cost-effectiveness,” the investigators said.

For older patients at unusually high risk for renal disease or bone-related adverse events, the switch from F/TDF to F/TAF would have greater clinical effect and benefit. Even in this population, however, it would be difficult to defend a price greater than $800 over the cost of the generic alternative,” they said.

“The message seems clear that the current cost of F/TAF does not justify wholesale conversion to F/TAF as the first-line agent for all PrEP-eligible patients,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, and Wendy Armstrong, MD, infectious disease professors at Emory University, Atlanta, in an editorial. “For PrEP-eligible persons at low risk for fracture and renal disease, it is very hard to justify use of F/TAF knowing that F/TDF will soon be generic” (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M20-0799).

“Successful PrEP scale-up in other countries was made possible by drug costs that are less than $100/month in most countries. In the United States, without drastic reductions in the cost of PrEP, which may be achievable with generic F/TDF ... we will fail to avert otherwise preventable new HIV transmissions,” they said.

The study was simultaneously published online (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478).

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. The investigators and editorialists didn’t have any industry disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Walensky RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478.

Economically, the modest safety benefit of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (Descovy) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis won’t justify paying thousands of dollars more for it when tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (Truvada) becomes available as a generic in a year or so, according to a population level cost-effectiveness analysis presented at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers held a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Those benefits will translate to a health savings worth only a few hundred dollars over the likely generic price, said investigators led by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

In a press statement, Gilead, which makes both medications, said it “strongly believes that the analysis ... is flawed, leading to inaccurate conclusions that severely underestimate the value of Descovy. The method and validation of the models, incomplete clinical data analyzed and the assumptions around potential pricing associated with a generic alternative to Truvada ... are inadequate to enable a sufficiently robust analysis.”

The company did not go into details about what exactly might have been off about the analysis.

Approved in Oct. 2019, tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (also known as F/TAF) is the first new option for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) since tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) was approved in 2012; F/TDF is going off patent soon.

Amid a robust marketing campaign, the new medication has already captured 25% of the PrEP market, and Gilead expects up to 45% of patients to switch to F/TAF before generic F/TDF becomes available.

That worries the investigators. “At the current FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] price of $16,600 per year,” a nationwide PrEP program that uses F/TAF “would consume the entire $900.8 million federal budget for HIV prevention several times over ... If branded F/TAF drives out generic F/TDF,” rates of PrEP coverage “could decrease, and F/TAF could end up causing more avoidable HIV transmissions” than it prevents. “Given the very small, albeit statistically significant, differences in surrogate [safety] markers, without evidence of clinical significance, there is no urgency and no reason to switch PrEP regimens now,” they said. Both medications were equally effective in preventing HIV transmission in Gilead’s head-to-head phase 3 trial, but there was an a mean of about a 4 mL/min difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 48 and about a 2% difference in hip and spine density at week 96, both favoring F/TAF. Marketing highlights those differences.

The investigators wanted to see how much they are worth, so they estimated savings from a possibly lower rate of bone fractures and renal failure with F/TAF and juxtaposed it with its cost and the anticipated cost of generic F/TDF at half-price, $8,300/patient-year.

They gave F/TAF the benefit of the doubt, skewing their model toward maximal harm and cost from F/TDF toxicity, and omitting the cost of increased lipid levels, weight gain, and other possible F/TAF adverse events.

In the end, they concluded that “the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year” over generic F/TDF based on toxicity differences. “Payers should consider the $370 premium ceiling estimated here in assessing whether to recommend that patients switch to F/TAF.”

The team calculated that F/TAF would prevent a maximum of 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease among 123,610 U.S. men who have sex with men treated for 5 years. That translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life-year, far above the $100,000 threshold considered acceptable in the United States.

“In the presence of a generic alternative, the current price of F/TAF would have to be reduced by over $7,900/year for F/TAF to satisfy generally accepted standards of societal value. If F/TDF can achieve the 75% price reduction that is commonly observed when generic competition ensues (that is, a cost of $4,150/year), the F/TAF price would need to be no higher than $4,520 to demonstrate value on the basis of cost-effectiveness,” the investigators said.

For older patients at unusually high risk for renal disease or bone-related adverse events, the switch from F/TDF to F/TAF would have greater clinical effect and benefit. Even in this population, however, it would be difficult to defend a price greater than $800 over the cost of the generic alternative,” they said.

“The message seems clear that the current cost of F/TAF does not justify wholesale conversion to F/TAF as the first-line agent for all PrEP-eligible patients,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, and Wendy Armstrong, MD, infectious disease professors at Emory University, Atlanta, in an editorial. “For PrEP-eligible persons at low risk for fracture and renal disease, it is very hard to justify use of F/TAF knowing that F/TDF will soon be generic” (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M20-0799).

“Successful PrEP scale-up in other countries was made possible by drug costs that are less than $100/month in most countries. In the United States, without drastic reductions in the cost of PrEP, which may be achievable with generic F/TDF ... we will fail to avert otherwise preventable new HIV transmissions,” they said.

The study was simultaneously published online (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478).

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. The investigators and editorialists didn’t have any industry disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Walensky RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478.

Valisure, an online pharmacy and analytical laboratory based in New Haven, Conn., has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to request recalls of the diabetes drug metformin from 11 companies after its own testing found levels of the probable carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) exceeded those recognized by the agency as being safe, according to a petition filed with the FDA.

Several of the batches tested from a total of 22 companies contained more than 10 times the accepted 96-ng daily limit for NDMA set by the agency.

“The presence of this probable carcinogen in a medication that is taken daily by adults and adolescents for a chronic condition like diabetes, makes [these findings] particularly troubling,” the pharmacy said in the petition. It noted that NDMA is classified by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2A compound, meaning that it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The Valisure findings are in contrast to those from the FDA’s own testing of metformin from eight companies. In results released Feb. 2, the agency found no NDMA in metformin from seven of the companies, and elevations within the safe limit in metformin from the remaining company. Based on those results, the FDA did not issue a recall.

The FDA declined to comment on the petition, pending a formal written response, a spokesman said.

Valisure said in its petition that one reason it found NDMA at concerning levels, and the FDA did not, could be that the pharmacy’s testing was more thorough than the agency’s because it had used its proprietary analytical technologies in addition to FDA standard assays. The pharmacy said it also cast a wider net, testing samples from 22 companies instead of 8, as the FDA had.

“At least one company that consistently displayed high levels of NDMA in all Valisure-tested batches was a company whose metformin products, to Valisure’s knowledge, were not tested by FDA,” Valisure said in the petition.

The pharmacy tested 38 batches of metformin from 22 companies, and found 16 contaminated batches from 11 companies. Results from one company were confirmed by an independent laboratory in California.

In addition, “there was significant variability from batch to batch, even within a single company, underscoring the importance of batch-level chemical analysis and the necessity of overall increased quality surveillance of medications,” the pharmacy stated in the petition.

David Light, Valisure founder and CEO, said in a press release that the results “indicate that contaminated batches of drugs are scattered and intermixed with clean [batches] throughout the American pharmaceutical supply chain. This strongly suggests that neither the limited testing FDA is able to conduct nor the pharmaceutical companies’ self-reporting of analytical results is sufficient to protect American consumers.”

He explained in an interview that metformin contamination probably comes from poor manufacturing, as NDMA can form during the manufacturing process. Companies are supposed to have processes in place to limit its formation and to check for and remove it before products are shipped. The contaminated batches might have come from China, which makes the bulk of U.S. active pharmaceutical ingredients, he said.

Recently, Apotex and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals recalled specific metformin lots in Canada after Canadian health authorities requested NDMA testing. Metformin versions have also been recalled in Singapore. European health authorities are also looking into the issue, according to a Mar. 3 press release from the European Medicines Agency.

Over the past 2 years, NDMA contamination has led to recalls of angiotensin receptor blockers, such as valsartan and losartan, because of NDMA in excess of the daily limit, and ranitidine-containing products such as Zantac. Valisure said it hopes the FDA will avoid the “year-long rolling recalls” that have occurred for angiotensin receptor blockers.

Metformin, which is used to treat type 2 diabetes, is the fourth-most prescribed drug in the United States. About 80 million prescriptions were written for it during 2019, according to the press release.

Valisure launched its investigation after it found NDMA in metformin a client asked it to check.

[email protected]

Valisure, an online pharmacy and analytical laboratory based in New Haven, Conn., has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to request recalls of the diabetes drug metformin from 11 companies after its own testing found levels of the probable carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) exceeded those recognized by the agency as being safe, according to a petition filed with the FDA.

Several of the batches tested from a total of 22 companies contained more than 10 times the accepted 96-ng daily limit for NDMA set by the agency.

“The presence of this probable carcinogen in a medication that is taken daily by adults and adolescents for a chronic condition like diabetes, makes [these findings] particularly troubling,” the pharmacy said in the petition. It noted that NDMA is classified by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2A compound, meaning that it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The Valisure findings are in contrast to those from the FDA’s own testing of metformin from eight companies. In results released Feb. 2, the agency found no NDMA in metformin from seven of the companies, and elevations within the safe limit in metformin from the remaining company. Based on those results, the FDA did not issue a recall.

The FDA declined to comment on the petition, pending a formal written response, a spokesman said.

Valisure said in its petition that one reason it found NDMA at concerning levels, and the FDA did not, could be that the pharmacy’s testing was more thorough than the agency’s because it had used its proprietary analytical technologies in addition to FDA standard assays. The pharmacy said it also cast a wider net, testing samples from 22 companies instead of 8, as the FDA had.

“At least one company that consistently displayed high levels of NDMA in all Valisure-tested batches was a company whose metformin products, to Valisure’s knowledge, were not tested by FDA,” Valisure said in the petition.

The pharmacy tested 38 batches of metformin from 22 companies, and found 16 contaminated batches from 11 companies. Results from one company were confirmed by an independent laboratory in California.

In addition, “there was significant variability from batch to batch, even within a single company, underscoring the importance of batch-level chemical analysis and the necessity of overall increased quality surveillance of medications,” the pharmacy stated in the petition.

David Light, Valisure founder and CEO, said in a press release that the results “indicate that contaminated batches of drugs are scattered and intermixed with clean [batches] throughout the American pharmaceutical supply chain. This strongly suggests that neither the limited testing FDA is able to conduct nor the pharmaceutical companies’ self-reporting of analytical results is sufficient to protect American consumers.”

He explained in an interview that metformin contamination probably comes from poor manufacturing, as NDMA can form during the manufacturing process. Companies are supposed to have processes in place to limit its formation and to check for and remove it before products are shipped. The contaminated batches might have come from China, which makes the bulk of U.S. active pharmaceutical ingredients, he said.

Recently, Apotex and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals recalled specific metformin lots in Canada after Canadian health authorities requested NDMA testing. Metformin versions have also been recalled in Singapore. European health authorities are also looking into the issue, according to a Mar. 3 press release from the European Medicines Agency.

Over the past 2 years, NDMA contamination has led to recalls of angiotensin receptor blockers, such as valsartan and losartan, because of NDMA in excess of the daily limit, and ranitidine-containing products such as Zantac. Valisure said it hopes the FDA will avoid the “year-long rolling recalls” that have occurred for angiotensin receptor blockers.

Metformin, which is used to treat type 2 diabetes, is the fourth-most prescribed drug in the United States. About 80 million prescriptions were written for it during 2019, according to the press release.

Valisure launched its investigation after it found NDMA in metformin a client asked it to check.

[email protected]

Valisure, an online pharmacy and analytical laboratory based in New Haven, Conn., has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to request recalls of the diabetes drug metformin from 11 companies after its own testing found levels of the probable carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) exceeded those recognized by the agency as being safe, according to a petition filed with the FDA.

Several of the batches tested from a total of 22 companies contained more than 10 times the accepted 96-ng daily limit for NDMA set by the agency.

“The presence of this probable carcinogen in a medication that is taken daily by adults and adolescents for a chronic condition like diabetes, makes [these findings] particularly troubling,” the pharmacy said in the petition. It noted that NDMA is classified by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2A compound, meaning that it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The Valisure findings are in contrast to those from the FDA’s own testing of metformin from eight companies. In results released Feb. 2, the agency found no NDMA in metformin from seven of the companies, and elevations within the safe limit in metformin from the remaining company. Based on those results, the FDA did not issue a recall.

The FDA declined to comment on the petition, pending a formal written response, a spokesman said.

Valisure said in its petition that one reason it found NDMA at concerning levels, and the FDA did not, could be that the pharmacy’s testing was more thorough than the agency’s because it had used its proprietary analytical technologies in addition to FDA standard assays. The pharmacy said it also cast a wider net, testing samples from 22 companies instead of 8, as the FDA had.

“At least one company that consistently displayed high levels of NDMA in all Valisure-tested batches was a company whose metformin products, to Valisure’s knowledge, were not tested by FDA,” Valisure said in the petition.

The pharmacy tested 38 batches of metformin from 22 companies, and found 16 contaminated batches from 11 companies. Results from one company were confirmed by an independent laboratory in California.

In addition, “there was significant variability from batch to batch, even within a single company, underscoring the importance of batch-level chemical analysis and the necessity of overall increased quality surveillance of medications,” the pharmacy stated in the petition.

David Light, Valisure founder and CEO, said in a press release that the results “indicate that contaminated batches of drugs are scattered and intermixed with clean [batches] throughout the American pharmaceutical supply chain. This strongly suggests that neither the limited testing FDA is able to conduct nor the pharmaceutical companies’ self-reporting of analytical results is sufficient to protect American consumers.”

He explained in an interview that metformin contamination probably comes from poor manufacturing, as NDMA can form during the manufacturing process. Companies are supposed to have processes in place to limit its formation and to check for and remove it before products are shipped. The contaminated batches might have come from China, which makes the bulk of U.S. active pharmaceutical ingredients, he said.

Recently, Apotex and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals recalled specific metformin lots in Canada after Canadian health authorities requested NDMA testing. Metformin versions have also been recalled in Singapore. European health authorities are also looking into the issue, according to a Mar. 3 press release from the European Medicines Agency.

Over the past 2 years, NDMA contamination has led to recalls of angiotensin receptor blockers, such as valsartan and losartan, because of NDMA in excess of the daily limit, and ranitidine-containing products such as Zantac. Valisure said it hopes the FDA will avoid the “year-long rolling recalls” that have occurred for angiotensin receptor blockers.

Metformin, which is used to treat type 2 diabetes, is the fourth-most prescribed drug in the United States. About 80 million prescriptions were written for it during 2019, according to the press release.

Valisure launched its investigation after it found NDMA in metformin a client asked it to check.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – There’s a new kid on the block to worry about when it comes to thiopurine pharmacogenetics: Genetic variants in the thiopurine-metabolizing enzyme nudix hydrolase 15 have been linked to a markedly increased risk of thiopurine myelosuppression among inflammatory bowel disease patients.

The Food and Drug Administration and others already recommend screening for genetic variants in thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT), another enzyme that metabolizes thiopurine. Polymorphisms lead to TMPT dysfunction, accumulation of cytotoxic metabolites, and increased risk of thiopurine-induced myelosuppression (TIM). Carriers are advised to use reduced doses with careful drug monitoring, or to skip thiopurines altogether.

A similar picture is emerging for nudix hydrolase 15 (NUDT15). It’s been known for several years that genetic variants are not uncommon among East Asian people and lead to TIM, but their prevalence and impact among people of European decent wasn’t clearly understood until now.

Investigators led by Gareth Walker, MBBS, of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital in Exeter, England, compared rates of problematic TMPT and NUDT15 variants among European inflammatory bowel disease patients who had developed TIM and those who had not, about 1,000 patients in all. The majority were on azathioprine and had Crohn’s disease. Finnish people were excluded because “their unique genetic background ... has led to the enrichment of some disease-causing gene variants and losses of others,” according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

Carriage of any of three coding NUDT15 variants greatly increased the risk of TIM (odds ratio, 27.3; 95% confidence interval, 9.3-116.7), independent of TPMT genotype and thiopurine dose. A particular variant – an in-frame deletion in NUDT15 – increased the risk 38-fold (95% CI, 5.1-286.1), and was carried by 5.8% of TIM patients.

The analysis also confirmed the importance of TPMT variants, which were found in 30.5% of TIM patients (95/311) versus 16.4% (100/608) of patients who did not develop TIM.

“Patients with variants of either NUDT15 or TPMT, or among those with variants of both genes, had a faster onset of TIM, more severe TIM, and had a greater need for granulocyte colony–stimulating factor rescue therapy. ... Our data suggest that pretreatment sequencing of the NUDT15 gene ... may be considered prior to initiation of thiopurine therapy,” the team concluded.

The prevalence of problematic NUDT15 variants among non-Finnish Europeans is about 1.6%, 6.9% among people from Finland, and almost 30% among East Asians. The team estimated NUDT15 would have to be genotyped in 95 non-Finnish Europeans to prevent one case of TIM; the number is 123 for TPMT. “Given the widespread use of thiopurines” – primarily in rheumatology and transplant medicine, in addition to gastroenterology – “these findings may have ramifications beyond the management of IBD,” the investigators wrote.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I do think it’s worthwhile” to screen for NUDT15, said Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who reviewed the study at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. “If you are a homozygote for this, your chance of getting profound leukopenia is very high, so I would probably not use a thiopurine.”

“If you are going to start low dose on everyone” with careful blood monitoring, “I suppose you could just do that, but I would say if you can get” the test and “are reassured the patient is not” carrying problematic NUDT15 or TMPT variants, “then I think you just go ahead and do full dose,” he said.

Testing for the relevant variants is available through the Mayo Clinic and several commercial labs.

“Even though the thiopurine dose is adjusted based on genotype, patients still need to be monitored closely for the development of thiopurine-induced myelosuppression as” TMPT and NUDT15 variants “do not explain all cases of” TIM, Marieke Coenen, PhD, an associate professor of pharmacogenetics at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, cautioned in an editorial (Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 12;4:81).

The prevalence of problematic NUDT15 variants is 0.7% among African and 20.7% among Hispanic people.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Crohn’s & Colitis UK, the Wellcome Trust, and others. Dr. Walker and other investigators reported numerous industry ties. Dr. Loftus is a consultant and/or has research funding from Abbott, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Coenen had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Walker GJ et al. JAMA. 2019 Feb 26;321(8):773-85.

MAUI, HAWAII – There’s a new kid on the block to worry about when it comes to thiopurine pharmacogenetics: Genetic variants in the thiopurine-metabolizing enzyme nudix hydrolase 15 have been linked to a markedly increased risk of thiopurine myelosuppression among inflammatory bowel disease patients.

The Food and Drug Administration and others already recommend screening for genetic variants in thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT), another enzyme that metabolizes thiopurine. Polymorphisms lead to TMPT dysfunction, accumulation of cytotoxic metabolites, and increased risk of thiopurine-induced myelosuppression (TIM). Carriers are advised to use reduced doses with careful drug monitoring, or to skip thiopurines altogether.

A similar picture is emerging for nudix hydrolase 15 (NUDT15). It’s been known for several years that genetic variants are not uncommon among East Asian people and lead to TIM, but their prevalence and impact among people of European decent wasn’t clearly understood until now.

Investigators led by Gareth Walker, MBBS, of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital in Exeter, England, compared rates of problematic TMPT and NUDT15 variants among European inflammatory bowel disease patients who had developed TIM and those who had not, about 1,000 patients in all. The majority were on azathioprine and had Crohn’s disease. Finnish people were excluded because “their unique genetic background ... has led to the enrichment of some disease-causing gene variants and losses of others,” according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

Carriage of any of three coding NUDT15 variants greatly increased the risk of TIM (odds ratio, 27.3; 95% confidence interval, 9.3-116.7), independent of TPMT genotype and thiopurine dose. A particular variant – an in-frame deletion in NUDT15 – increased the risk 38-fold (95% CI, 5.1-286.1), and was carried by 5.8% of TIM patients.

The analysis also confirmed the importance of TPMT variants, which were found in 30.5% of TIM patients (95/311) versus 16.4% (100/608) of patients who did not develop TIM.

“Patients with variants of either NUDT15 or TPMT, or among those with variants of both genes, had a faster onset of TIM, more severe TIM, and had a greater need for granulocyte colony–stimulating factor rescue therapy. ... Our data suggest that pretreatment sequencing of the NUDT15 gene ... may be considered prior to initiation of thiopurine therapy,” the team concluded.

The prevalence of problematic NUDT15 variants among non-Finnish Europeans is about 1.6%, 6.9% among people from Finland, and almost 30% among East Asians. The team estimated NUDT15 would have to be genotyped in 95 non-Finnish Europeans to prevent one case of TIM; the number is 123 for TPMT. “Given the widespread use of thiopurines” – primarily in rheumatology and transplant medicine, in addition to gastroenterology – “these findings may have ramifications beyond the management of IBD,” the investigators wrote.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I do think it’s worthwhile” to screen for NUDT15, said Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who reviewed the study at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. “If you are a homozygote for this, your chance of getting profound leukopenia is very high, so I would probably not use a thiopurine.”

“If you are going to start low dose on everyone” with careful blood monitoring, “I suppose you could just do that, but I would say if you can get” the test and “are reassured the patient is not” carrying problematic NUDT15 or TMPT variants, “then I think you just go ahead and do full dose,” he said.

Testing for the relevant variants is available through the Mayo Clinic and several commercial labs.

“Even though the thiopurine dose is adjusted based on genotype, patients still need to be monitored closely for the development of thiopurine-induced myelosuppression as” TMPT and NUDT15 variants “do not explain all cases of” TIM, Marieke Coenen, PhD, an associate professor of pharmacogenetics at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, cautioned in an editorial (Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 12;4:81).

The prevalence of problematic NUDT15 variants is 0.7% among African and 20.7% among Hispanic people.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Crohn’s & Colitis UK, the Wellcome Trust, and others. Dr. Walker and other investigators reported numerous industry ties. Dr. Loftus is a consultant and/or has research funding from Abbott, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Coenen had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Walker GJ et al. JAMA. 2019 Feb 26;321(8):773-85.

MAUI, HAWAII – There’s a new kid on the block to worry about when it comes to thiopurine pharmacogenetics: Genetic variants in the thiopurine-metabolizing enzyme nudix hydrolase 15 have been linked to a markedly increased risk of thiopurine myelosuppression among inflammatory bowel disease patients.

The Food and Drug Administration and others already recommend screening for genetic variants in thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT), another enzyme that metabolizes thiopurine. Polymorphisms lead to TMPT dysfunction, accumulation of cytotoxic metabolites, and increased risk of thiopurine-induced myelosuppression (TIM). Carriers are advised to use reduced doses with careful drug monitoring, or to skip thiopurines altogether.

A similar picture is emerging for nudix hydrolase 15 (NUDT15). It’s been known for several years that genetic variants are not uncommon among East Asian people and lead to TIM, but their prevalence and impact among people of European decent wasn’t clearly understood until now.

Investigators led by Gareth Walker, MBBS, of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital in Exeter, England, compared rates of problematic TMPT and NUDT15 variants among European inflammatory bowel disease patients who had developed TIM and those who had not, about 1,000 patients in all. The majority were on azathioprine and had Crohn’s disease. Finnish people were excluded because “their unique genetic background ... has led to the enrichment of some disease-causing gene variants and losses of others,” according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

Carriage of any of three coding NUDT15 variants greatly increased the risk of TIM (odds ratio, 27.3; 95% confidence interval, 9.3-116.7), independent of TPMT genotype and thiopurine dose. A particular variant – an in-frame deletion in NUDT15 – increased the risk 38-fold (95% CI, 5.1-286.1), and was carried by 5.8% of TIM patients.

The analysis also confirmed the importance of TPMT variants, which were found in 30.5% of TIM patients (95/311) versus 16.4% (100/608) of patients who did not develop TIM.

“Patients with variants of either NUDT15 or TPMT, or among those with variants of both genes, had a faster onset of TIM, more severe TIM, and had a greater need for granulocyte colony–stimulating factor rescue therapy. ... Our data suggest that pretreatment sequencing of the NUDT15 gene ... may be considered prior to initiation of thiopurine therapy,” the team concluded.

The prevalence of problematic NUDT15 variants among non-Finnish Europeans is about 1.6%, 6.9% among people from Finland, and almost 30% among East Asians. The team estimated NUDT15 would have to be genotyped in 95 non-Finnish Europeans to prevent one case of TIM; the number is 123 for TPMT. “Given the widespread use of thiopurines” – primarily in rheumatology and transplant medicine, in addition to gastroenterology – “these findings may have ramifications beyond the management of IBD,” the investigators wrote.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I do think it’s worthwhile” to screen for NUDT15, said Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who reviewed the study at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. “If you are a homozygote for this, your chance of getting profound leukopenia is very high, so I would probably not use a thiopurine.”

“If you are going to start low dose on everyone” with careful blood monitoring, “I suppose you could just do that, but I would say if you can get” the test and “are reassured the patient is not” carrying problematic NUDT15 or TMPT variants, “then I think you just go ahead and do full dose,” he said.

Testing for the relevant variants is available through the Mayo Clinic and several commercial labs.

“Even though the thiopurine dose is adjusted based on genotype, patients still need to be monitored closely for the development of thiopurine-induced myelosuppression as” TMPT and NUDT15 variants “do not explain all cases of” TIM, Marieke Coenen, PhD, an associate professor of pharmacogenetics at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, cautioned in an editorial (Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 12;4:81).

The prevalence of problematic NUDT15 variants is 0.7% among African and 20.7% among Hispanic people.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Crohn’s & Colitis UK, the Wellcome Trust, and others. Dr. Walker and other investigators reported numerous industry ties. Dr. Loftus is a consultant and/or has research funding from Abbott, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Coenen had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Walker GJ et al. JAMA. 2019 Feb 26;321(8):773-85.

MAUI, HAWAII – A variant in the human leukocyte antigen gene – DQA1*05 – almost doubled the risk of antibodies forming against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in Crohn’s disease patients, irrespective of concomitant immunomodulator use, according to a report in Gastroenterology.

“Pretreatment genetic testing for HLA-DQA1*05 may help personalize the choice of anti-TNF and the need for combination therapy,” concluded investigators led by Aleksejs Sazonovs, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England.

The same variant increases the risk of celiac disease, and it is included in commercial celiac genotyping assays. The allele is carried by about 40% of Europeans.

“This is turning into a hot topic; people are talking about it, [and it’s] blowing up on Twitter,” said Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “It turns out this is really a significant predictor of immunogenicity. Whatever your risk of developing antibodies, it’s going to double if you have this HLA marker, and it’s common.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think we are going to start [stratifying] our decision on combination [or] monotherapy based on this,” added Dr. Loftus, speaking at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. “I would argue that, if your patient has this marker, it would be criminal to give that patient infliximab monotherapy.”

The finding also begs the question of whether to bypass anti-TNFs altogether if a patient has the marker, Dr. Loftus noted, and just use ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or another agent.

Checking for celiac disease in inflammatory bowel disease isn’t unusual and involves the same gene variant, he added, so payer coverage shouldn’t be much of a problem.

The investigators ran a genome-wide association study on 1,418 biologic-naive Crohn’s patients starting infliximab or adalimumab therapy. Patients were in their 30s, on average, with a disease duration of about 3 years; there were about equal numbers of men and women.

A total of 44% of patients developed antidrug antibodies within a year. Overall, the rate of immunogenicity – defined as an antidrug antibody titer of at least 10 AU/mL – was nearly doubled in HLA-DQA1*05 carriers (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.25).

The association was consistent for patients treated with adalimumab (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.32-2.70) or infliximab (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.57-2.33) and for patients treated with anti-TNF therapy alone (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.37-2.22) or in combination with an immunomodulator, usually azathioprine (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57-2.58).

The highest rates of immunogenicity, 92% at 1 year, were in HLA-DQA1*05 carriers on infliximab monotherapy. The lowest rates, 10% at 1 year, were in adalimumab patients on combination therapy who didn’t carry the variant. HLA-DQA1*05 was also associated with lower drug persistence rates.

The specific alleles HLA-DQA1*05:01 and HLA-DQA1*05:05 mediated most of the risk.

The study authors advised that “all patients treated with an anti-TNF should be prescribed an immunomodulator to lower the risk of immunogenicity.” Among HLA-DQA1*05 carriers “in whom immunomodulators are contraindicated or not tolerated, clinicians might advise against the use of anti-TNF drugs, particularly infliximab.”

In contrast, “patients who do not carry HLA-DQA1*05 might be given the choice between adalimumab or infliximab combination therapy,” the investigators said. “Patients without the risk allele and a history of adverse drug reactions to thiopurines and/or methotrexate, or who are at high risk of opportunistic infections, might be spared the additional risks of combination therapy and treated with adalimumab monotherapy.”

The mechanism for the association is unknown, the authors said.

The work was funded by the British Society of Gastroenterology, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others. The authors disclosed numerous ties to those or other pharmaceutical companies. Two authors were employees of AbbVie, marketer of the branded adalimumab Humira.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sazonovs A et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(1):189-99.

MAUI, HAWAII – A variant in the human leukocyte antigen gene – DQA1*05 – almost doubled the risk of antibodies forming against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in Crohn’s disease patients, irrespective of concomitant immunomodulator use, according to a report in Gastroenterology.

“Pretreatment genetic testing for HLA-DQA1*05 may help personalize the choice of anti-TNF and the need for combination therapy,” concluded investigators led by Aleksejs Sazonovs, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England.

The same variant increases the risk of celiac disease, and it is included in commercial celiac genotyping assays. The allele is carried by about 40% of Europeans.

“This is turning into a hot topic; people are talking about it, [and it’s] blowing up on Twitter,” said Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “It turns out this is really a significant predictor of immunogenicity. Whatever your risk of developing antibodies, it’s going to double if you have this HLA marker, and it’s common.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think we are going to start [stratifying] our decision on combination [or] monotherapy based on this,” added Dr. Loftus, speaking at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. “I would argue that, if your patient has this marker, it would be criminal to give that patient infliximab monotherapy.”

The finding also begs the question of whether to bypass anti-TNFs altogether if a patient has the marker, Dr. Loftus noted, and just use ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or another agent.

Checking for celiac disease in inflammatory bowel disease isn’t unusual and involves the same gene variant, he added, so payer coverage shouldn’t be much of a problem.

The investigators ran a genome-wide association study on 1,418 biologic-naive Crohn’s patients starting infliximab or adalimumab therapy. Patients were in their 30s, on average, with a disease duration of about 3 years; there were about equal numbers of men and women.

A total of 44% of patients developed antidrug antibodies within a year. Overall, the rate of immunogenicity – defined as an antidrug antibody titer of at least 10 AU/mL – was nearly doubled in HLA-DQA1*05 carriers (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.25).

The association was consistent for patients treated with adalimumab (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.32-2.70) or infliximab (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.57-2.33) and for patients treated with anti-TNF therapy alone (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.37-2.22) or in combination with an immunomodulator, usually azathioprine (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57-2.58).

The highest rates of immunogenicity, 92% at 1 year, were in HLA-DQA1*05 carriers on infliximab monotherapy. The lowest rates, 10% at 1 year, were in adalimumab patients on combination therapy who didn’t carry the variant. HLA-DQA1*05 was also associated with lower drug persistence rates.

The specific alleles HLA-DQA1*05:01 and HLA-DQA1*05:05 mediated most of the risk.

The study authors advised that “all patients treated with an anti-TNF should be prescribed an immunomodulator to lower the risk of immunogenicity.” Among HLA-DQA1*05 carriers “in whom immunomodulators are contraindicated or not tolerated, clinicians might advise against the use of anti-TNF drugs, particularly infliximab.”

In contrast, “patients who do not carry HLA-DQA1*05 might be given the choice between adalimumab or infliximab combination therapy,” the investigators said. “Patients without the risk allele and a history of adverse drug reactions to thiopurines and/or methotrexate, or who are at high risk of opportunistic infections, might be spared the additional risks of combination therapy and treated with adalimumab monotherapy.”

The mechanism for the association is unknown, the authors said.

The work was funded by the British Society of Gastroenterology, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others. The authors disclosed numerous ties to those or other pharmaceutical companies. Two authors were employees of AbbVie, marketer of the branded adalimumab Humira.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sazonovs A et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(1):189-99.

MAUI, HAWAII – A variant in the human leukocyte antigen gene – DQA1*05 – almost doubled the risk of antibodies forming against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in Crohn’s disease patients, irrespective of concomitant immunomodulator use, according to a report in Gastroenterology.

“Pretreatment genetic testing for HLA-DQA1*05 may help personalize the choice of anti-TNF and the need for combination therapy,” concluded investigators led by Aleksejs Sazonovs, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England.

The same variant increases the risk of celiac disease, and it is included in commercial celiac genotyping assays. The allele is carried by about 40% of Europeans.

“This is turning into a hot topic; people are talking about it, [and it’s] blowing up on Twitter,” said Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “It turns out this is really a significant predictor of immunogenicity. Whatever your risk of developing antibodies, it’s going to double if you have this HLA marker, and it’s common.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think we are going to start [stratifying] our decision on combination [or] monotherapy based on this,” added Dr. Loftus, speaking at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. “I would argue that, if your patient has this marker, it would be criminal to give that patient infliximab monotherapy.”

The finding also begs the question of whether to bypass anti-TNFs altogether if a patient has the marker, Dr. Loftus noted, and just use ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or another agent.

Checking for celiac disease in inflammatory bowel disease isn’t unusual and involves the same gene variant, he added, so payer coverage shouldn’t be much of a problem.

The investigators ran a genome-wide association study on 1,418 biologic-naive Crohn’s patients starting infliximab or adalimumab therapy. Patients were in their 30s, on average, with a disease duration of about 3 years; there were about equal numbers of men and women.

A total of 44% of patients developed antidrug antibodies within a year. Overall, the rate of immunogenicity – defined as an antidrug antibody titer of at least 10 AU/mL – was nearly doubled in HLA-DQA1*05 carriers (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.25).

The association was consistent for patients treated with adalimumab (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.32-2.70) or infliximab (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.57-2.33) and for patients treated with anti-TNF therapy alone (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.37-2.22) or in combination with an immunomodulator, usually azathioprine (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57-2.58).

The highest rates of immunogenicity, 92% at 1 year, were in HLA-DQA1*05 carriers on infliximab monotherapy. The lowest rates, 10% at 1 year, were in adalimumab patients on combination therapy who didn’t carry the variant. HLA-DQA1*05 was also associated with lower drug persistence rates.

The specific alleles HLA-DQA1*05:01 and HLA-DQA1*05:05 mediated most of the risk.

The study authors advised that “all patients treated with an anti-TNF should be prescribed an immunomodulator to lower the risk of immunogenicity.” Among HLA-DQA1*05 carriers “in whom immunomodulators are contraindicated or not tolerated, clinicians might advise against the use of anti-TNF drugs, particularly infliximab.”

In contrast, “patients who do not carry HLA-DQA1*05 might be given the choice between adalimumab or infliximab combination therapy,” the investigators said. “Patients without the risk allele and a history of adverse drug reactions to thiopurines and/or methotrexate, or who are at high risk of opportunistic infections, might be spared the additional risks of combination therapy and treated with adalimumab monotherapy.”

The mechanism for the association is unknown, the authors said.

The work was funded by the British Society of Gastroenterology, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others. The authors disclosed numerous ties to those or other pharmaceutical companies. Two authors were employees of AbbVie, marketer of the branded adalimumab Humira.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sazonovs A et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(1):189-99.

MAUI, HAWAII – Gastroenterologists are starting to embrace proactive therapeutic drug monitoring for inflammatory bowel disease patients on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, according to reports at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, and Liver Disease conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an alternative to standard combination therapy for inflammatory bowel disease, which involves giving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) with an immunomodulator, usually azathioprine.

The immunomodulator is meant to prevent antibodies from forming against the TNFi and short-circuiting its effect. Growing evidence suggests that proactive TDM can do the same thing without the second drug and its sometimes fatal adverse events.

Serum TNFi levels are checked during induction, when the risk of antibody formation is highest if levels are too low, and increased upward if they are. Levels are also checked to make sure they aren’t too high, and sometimes followed during maintenance, speakers said at the meeting.

Commercially available serum assays make it easy; the turnaround time is a few days.
 

Reactive testing is too late

Reactive, instead of proactive, TNFi level testing is standard at the moment, which means levels are checked when people stop responding, but by then it’s often too late. “Why wait until a patient isn’t doing well and potentially has antibodies you can’t overcome before optimizing them? Why not deal with dose optimizing [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] as opposed to using another drug like a thiopurine? This is common sense,” said gastroenterologist Adam Cheifetz, MD, director of the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a long-time advocate for proactive TDM.

Not too long ago, Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., doubted the approach, but he’s since come around “now that we are starting to see higher level data.” In his own practice, he said he now checks infliximab levels at week 14, before the fourth infusion. Other clinicians check at week 6 before the third infusion.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The evidence

Both presenters reviewed a recent randomized trial from Israel in pediatric Crohn’s patients induced with adalimumab. Trough levels were checked and adjusted as necessary to concentrations of 5 mcg/mL at weeks 4 and 8, and every 8 weeks thereafter, in 38 children; 40 others were randomized to reactive monitoring, with adjustments to the same trough level. Most of the children in the proactive group had dose intensifications, versus fewer than two-thirds in the reactive group.

At week 72, 31 children (82%) in the proactive group, but only 19 children (48%) in the reactive group, met the study’s primary endpoint, sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission at all visits (Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct;157[4]:985-96.e2).

In short, “proactive TDM was far superior to reactive testing,” Dr. Cheifetz said.

There’s a question if the results would translate to adults, but, Dr. Loftus said, they beg “the issue of if I should be checking adalimumab trough levels at weeks 4 and 8. It certainly gives you pause to think about doing that.”

Among other reports, Dr. Cheifetz also reviewed a retrospective study of 264 patients – almost two-thirds with Crohn’s disease, the rest with ulcerative colitis - on infliximab maintenance therapy; half had proactive TDM, and the rest reactive monitoring. The target trough concentration was 5-10 mcg/mL; median follow-up was 2.4 years. He was the senior investigator.

On multiple Cox regression analysis, the proactive group had an 84% lower risk of treatment failure, an 84% lower risk of IBD hospitalization, a 75% lower risk of antibody formation, an 83% lower risk of serious infusion reactions, and a 70% lower risk of IBD surgery (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;15[10]:1580-8.e3).

Dr. Cheifetz said he uses assays from Prometheus Laboratories for proactive TDM, but there are other options. Prometheus turnaround times are a few days. He and his colleagues also have a website – www.bridgeibd.com – where doctors can plug in patient characteristics and get proactive TDM advice.

Dr. Cheifetz is a consultant for Prometheus, as well as Janssen, Abbvie and other companies. He disclosed research funding form Inform Diagnostics. Dr. Loftus is a consultant and/or has research funding from Abbott, Pfizer, and other companies.
 

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Gastroenterologists are starting to embrace proactive therapeutic drug monitoring for inflammatory bowel disease patients on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, according to reports at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, and Liver Disease conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an alternative to standard combination therapy for inflammatory bowel disease, which involves giving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) with an immunomodulator, usually azathioprine.

The immunomodulator is meant to prevent antibodies from forming against the TNFi and short-circuiting its effect. Growing evidence suggests that proactive TDM can do the same thing without the second drug and its sometimes fatal adverse events.

Serum TNFi levels are checked during induction, when the risk of antibody formation is highest if levels are too low, and increased upward if they are. Levels are also checked to make sure they aren’t too high, and sometimes followed during maintenance, speakers said at the meeting.

Commercially available serum assays make it easy; the turnaround time is a few days.
 

Reactive testing is too late

Reactive, instead of proactive, TNFi level testing is standard at the moment, which means levels are checked when people stop responding, but by then it’s often too late. “Why wait until a patient isn’t doing well and potentially has antibodies you can’t overcome before optimizing them? Why not deal with dose optimizing [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] as opposed to using another drug like a thiopurine? This is common sense,” said gastroenterologist Adam Cheifetz, MD, director of the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a long-time advocate for proactive TDM.

Not too long ago, Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., doubted the approach, but he’s since come around “now that we are starting to see higher level data.” In his own practice, he said he now checks infliximab levels at week 14, before the fourth infusion. Other clinicians check at week 6 before the third infusion.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The evidence

Both presenters reviewed a recent randomized trial from Israel in pediatric Crohn’s patients induced with adalimumab. Trough levels were checked and adjusted as necessary to concentrations of 5 mcg/mL at weeks 4 and 8, and every 8 weeks thereafter, in 38 children; 40 others were randomized to reactive monitoring, with adjustments to the same trough level. Most of the children in the proactive group had dose intensifications, versus fewer than two-thirds in the reactive group.

At week 72, 31 children (82%) in the proactive group, but only 19 children (48%) in the reactive group, met the study’s primary endpoint, sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission at all visits (Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct;157[4]:985-96.e2).

In short, “proactive TDM was far superior to reactive testing,” Dr. Cheifetz said.

There’s a question if the results would translate to adults, but, Dr. Loftus said, they beg “the issue of if I should be checking adalimumab trough levels at weeks 4 and 8. It certainly gives you pause to think about doing that.”

Among other reports, Dr. Cheifetz also reviewed a retrospective study of 264 patients – almost two-thirds with Crohn’s disease, the rest with ulcerative colitis - on infliximab maintenance therapy; half had proactive TDM, and the rest reactive monitoring. The target trough concentration was 5-10 mcg/mL; median follow-up was 2.4 years. He was the senior investigator.

On multiple Cox regression analysis, the proactive group had an 84% lower risk of treatment failure, an 84% lower risk of IBD hospitalization, a 75% lower risk of antibody formation, an 83% lower risk of serious infusion reactions, and a 70% lower risk of IBD surgery (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;15[10]:1580-8.e3).

Dr. Cheifetz said he uses assays from Prometheus Laboratories for proactive TDM, but there are other options. Prometheus turnaround times are a few days. He and his colleagues also have a website – www.bridgeibd.com – where doctors can plug in patient characteristics and get proactive TDM advice.

Dr. Cheifetz is a consultant for Prometheus, as well as Janssen, Abbvie and other companies. He disclosed research funding form Inform Diagnostics. Dr. Loftus is a consultant and/or has research funding from Abbott, Pfizer, and other companies.
 

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Gastroenterologists are starting to embrace proactive therapeutic drug monitoring for inflammatory bowel disease patients on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, according to reports at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, and Liver Disease conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an alternative to standard combination therapy for inflammatory bowel disease, which involves giving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) with an immunomodulator, usually azathioprine.

The immunomodulator is meant to prevent antibodies from forming against the TNFi and short-circuiting its effect. Growing evidence suggests that proactive TDM can do the same thing without the second drug and its sometimes fatal adverse events.

Serum TNFi levels are checked during induction, when the risk of antibody formation is highest if levels are too low, and increased upward if they are. Levels are also checked to make sure they aren’t too high, and sometimes followed during maintenance, speakers said at the meeting.

Commercially available serum assays make it easy; the turnaround time is a few days.
 

Reactive testing is too late

Reactive, instead of proactive, TNFi level testing is standard at the moment, which means levels are checked when people stop responding, but by then it’s often too late. “Why wait until a patient isn’t doing well and potentially has antibodies you can’t overcome before optimizing them? Why not deal with dose optimizing [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] as opposed to using another drug like a thiopurine? This is common sense,” said gastroenterologist Adam Cheifetz, MD, director of the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a long-time advocate for proactive TDM.

Not too long ago, Edward Loftus, MD, a professor and consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., doubted the approach, but he’s since come around “now that we are starting to see higher level data.” In his own practice, he said he now checks infliximab levels at week 14, before the fourth infusion. Other clinicians check at week 6 before the third infusion.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The evidence

Both presenters reviewed a recent randomized trial from Israel in pediatric Crohn’s patients induced with adalimumab. Trough levels were checked and adjusted as necessary to concentrations of 5 mcg/mL at weeks 4 and 8, and every 8 weeks thereafter, in 38 children; 40 others were randomized to reactive monitoring, with adjustments to the same trough level. Most of the children in the proactive group had dose intensifications, versus fewer than two-thirds in the reactive group.

At week 72, 31 children (82%) in the proactive group, but only 19 children (48%) in the reactive group, met the study’s primary endpoint, sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission at all visits (Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct;157[4]:985-96.e2).

In short, “proactive TDM was far superior to reactive testing,” Dr. Cheifetz said.

There’s a question if the results would translate to adults, but, Dr. Loftus said, they beg “the issue of if I should be checking adalimumab trough levels at weeks 4 and 8. It certainly gives you pause to think about doing that.”

Among other reports, Dr. Cheifetz also reviewed a retrospective study of 264 patients – almost two-thirds with Crohn’s disease, the rest with ulcerative colitis - on infliximab maintenance therapy; half had proactive TDM, and the rest reactive monitoring. The target trough concentration was 5-10 mcg/mL; median follow-up was 2.4 years. He was the senior investigator.

On multiple Cox regression analysis, the proactive group had an 84% lower risk of treatment failure, an 84% lower risk of IBD hospitalization, a 75% lower risk of antibody formation, an 83% lower risk of serious infusion reactions, and a 70% lower risk of IBD surgery (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;15[10]:1580-8.e3).

Dr. Cheifetz said he uses assays from Prometheus Laboratories for proactive TDM, but there are other options. Prometheus turnaround times are a few days. He and his colleagues also have a website – www.bridgeibd.com – where doctors can plug in patient characteristics and get proactive TDM advice.

Dr. Cheifetz is a consultant for Prometheus, as well as Janssen, Abbvie and other companies. He disclosed research funding form Inform Diagnostics. Dr. Loftus is a consultant and/or has research funding from Abbott, Pfizer, and other companies.
 

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – There might well be a cure for hepatitis B in coming years, just like there is now for hepatitis C, according to Norah Terrault, MD, chief of the division of GI and liver at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are going to have a laundry list of new drugs” that are in the pipeline now. Phase 2 results “look encouraging. You will hear much more about this in the years ahead,” said Dr. Terrault, lead author of the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) hepatitis B guidance.

For now, though, the field is largely limited to the nucleoside analogues tenofovir and entecavir. Treatment is often indefinite because, although hepatitis B virus (HBV) e-antigen is cleared, it usually doesn’t clear the HBV surface antigen, which is linked to liver cancer. “Even with e-antigen–negative patients, we feel that indefinite therapy is really the way to go,” Dr. Terrault said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

One of the biggest problems with that strategy is what to do when HBV does not seem to be much of a problem for carriers. Such patients are referred to as immune tolerant.
 

A newly recognized cancer risk

Immune tolerant patients tend to be young and have extremely high viral loads but no apparent ill effects, with normal ALT levels, normal histology, and no sign of cirrhosis. Although the AASLD recommends not treating these patients until they are 40 years old, waiting makes people nervous. “You have a hammer, you want to hit a nail,” Dr. Terrault said.

A recent review (Gut. 2018 May;67[5]:945-52) suggests that hitting the nail might be the way to go. South Korean investigators found that 413 untreated immune tolerate patients with a mean age of 38 years had more than twice the risk of liver cancer over 10 years than did almost 1,500 treated patients with active disease.

The study investigators concluded that “unnecessary deaths could be prevented through earlier antiviral intervention in select [immune tolerate] patients.”

This finding is one reason “we [AASLD] are rethinking the mantra of not treating the immune tolerant. There is a group that is transitioning” to active disease. “I’m thinking we should really [lower] the age cutoff” to 30 years, as some other groups [European Association for the Study of the Liver and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver] have done, plus “patients feel really good when they know the virus is controlled, and so do physicians,” Dr. Terrault said.
 

Entecavir versus tenofovir

Meanwhile, recent studies have raised the question of whether tenofovir is better than entecavir at preventing liver cancer.

A JAMA Oncology (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5[1]:30-6) study of some 25,000 patients in South Korea found a 32% lower risk of liver cancer when they were treated with tenofovir instead of entecavir. “This led to a lot of concern that maybe we should be moving all our patients to tenofovir,” she said.

Another study, a meta-analysis published earlier this year (Hepatol Int. 2020 Jan;14[1]:105-14), confirmed the difference in cancer risk when it combined those findings with other research. After adjustment for potential confounders, including disease stage and length of follow-up, “the difference disappeared” (hazard ration, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), authors of the meta-analysis reported.

Study patients who received entecavir tended to be “treated many years ago and tended to have more severe [baseline] disease,” Dr. Terrault said.

So “while we see this difference, there’s not enough data yet for us to make a recommendation for our patients to switch from” entecavir to tenofovir. “Until a randomized controlled trial is done, this may remain an issue,” she said.
 

A drug holiday?

Dr. Terrault also reviewed research that suggests nucleoside analogue treatment can be stopped in e-antigen–negative patients after at least 3 years.

“The evidence is increasing that a finite NA [nucleoside analogue] treatment approach leads to higher HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] loss rates, compared with the current long-term NA strategy, and can be considered a rational strategy to induce a functional cure in selected HBeAg-negative patients without cirrhosis who are willing to comply with close follow-up monitoring. ... The current observed functional cure rates” – perhaps about 40% – “would be well worth the effort,” editorialists commenting on the research concluded (Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68[2]:397-400).

It’s an interesting idea, Dr. Terrault said, but the virus will flare 8-12 weeks after treatment withdrawal, which is why it shouldn’t be considered in patients with cirrhosis.

Dr. Terrault is a consultant for AbbVie, Merck, Gilead, and other companies and disclosed grants from those companies and others.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – There might well be a cure for hepatitis B in coming years, just like there is now for hepatitis C, according to Norah Terrault, MD, chief of the division of GI and liver at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are going to have a laundry list of new drugs” that are in the pipeline now. Phase 2 results “look encouraging. You will hear much more about this in the years ahead,” said Dr. Terrault, lead author of the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) hepatitis B guidance.

For now, though, the field is largely limited to the nucleoside analogues tenofovir and entecavir. Treatment is often indefinite because, although hepatitis B virus (HBV) e-antigen is cleared, it usually doesn’t clear the HBV surface antigen, which is linked to liver cancer. “Even with e-antigen–negative patients, we feel that indefinite therapy is really the way to go,” Dr. Terrault said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

One of the biggest problems with that strategy is what to do when HBV does not seem to be much of a problem for carriers. Such patients are referred to as immune tolerant.
 

A newly recognized cancer risk

Immune tolerant patients tend to be young and have extremely high viral loads but no apparent ill effects, with normal ALT levels, normal histology, and no sign of cirrhosis. Although the AASLD recommends not treating these patients until they are 40 years old, waiting makes people nervous. “You have a hammer, you want to hit a nail,” Dr. Terrault said.

A recent review (Gut. 2018 May;67[5]:945-52) suggests that hitting the nail might be the way to go. South Korean investigators found that 413 untreated immune tolerate patients with a mean age of 38 years had more than twice the risk of liver cancer over 10 years than did almost 1,500 treated patients with active disease.

The study investigators concluded that “unnecessary deaths could be prevented through earlier antiviral intervention in select [immune tolerate] patients.”

This finding is one reason “we [AASLD] are rethinking the mantra of not treating the immune tolerant. There is a group that is transitioning” to active disease. “I’m thinking we should really [lower] the age cutoff” to 30 years, as some other groups [European Association for the Study of the Liver and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver] have done, plus “patients feel really good when they know the virus is controlled, and so do physicians,” Dr. Terrault said.
 

Entecavir versus tenofovir

Meanwhile, recent studies have raised the question of whether tenofovir is better than entecavir at preventing liver cancer.

A JAMA Oncology (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5[1]:30-6) study of some 25,000 patients in South Korea found a 32% lower risk of liver cancer when they were treated with tenofovir instead of entecavir. “This led to a lot of concern that maybe we should be moving all our patients to tenofovir,” she said.

Another study, a meta-analysis published earlier this year (Hepatol Int. 2020 Jan;14[1]:105-14), confirmed the difference in cancer risk when it combined those findings with other research. After adjustment for potential confounders, including disease stage and length of follow-up, “the difference disappeared” (hazard ration, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), authors of the meta-analysis reported.

Study patients who received entecavir tended to be “treated many years ago and tended to have more severe [baseline] disease,” Dr. Terrault said.

So “while we see this difference, there’s not enough data yet for us to make a recommendation for our patients to switch from” entecavir to tenofovir. “Until a randomized controlled trial is done, this may remain an issue,” she said.
 

A drug holiday?

Dr. Terrault also reviewed research that suggests nucleoside analogue treatment can be stopped in e-antigen–negative patients after at least 3 years.

“The evidence is increasing that a finite NA [nucleoside analogue] treatment approach leads to higher HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] loss rates, compared with the current long-term NA strategy, and can be considered a rational strategy to induce a functional cure in selected HBeAg-negative patients without cirrhosis who are willing to comply with close follow-up monitoring. ... The current observed functional cure rates” – perhaps about 40% – “would be well worth the effort,” editorialists commenting on the research concluded (Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68[2]:397-400).

It’s an interesting idea, Dr. Terrault said, but the virus will flare 8-12 weeks after treatment withdrawal, which is why it shouldn’t be considered in patients with cirrhosis.

Dr. Terrault is a consultant for AbbVie, Merck, Gilead, and other companies and disclosed grants from those companies and others.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – There might well be a cure for hepatitis B in coming years, just like there is now for hepatitis C, according to Norah Terrault, MD, chief of the division of GI and liver at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are going to have a laundry list of new drugs” that are in the pipeline now. Phase 2 results “look encouraging. You will hear much more about this in the years ahead,” said Dr. Terrault, lead author of the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) hepatitis B guidance.

For now, though, the field is largely limited to the nucleoside analogues tenofovir and entecavir. Treatment is often indefinite because, although hepatitis B virus (HBV) e-antigen is cleared, it usually doesn’t clear the HBV surface antigen, which is linked to liver cancer. “Even with e-antigen–negative patients, we feel that indefinite therapy is really the way to go,” Dr. Terrault said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

One of the biggest problems with that strategy is what to do when HBV does not seem to be much of a problem for carriers. Such patients are referred to as immune tolerant.
 

A newly recognized cancer risk

Immune tolerant patients tend to be young and have extremely high viral loads but no apparent ill effects, with normal ALT levels, normal histology, and no sign of cirrhosis. Although the AASLD recommends not treating these patients until they are 40 years old, waiting makes people nervous. “You have a hammer, you want to hit a nail,” Dr. Terrault said.

A recent review (Gut. 2018 May;67[5]:945-52) suggests that hitting the nail might be the way to go. South Korean investigators found that 413 untreated immune tolerate patients with a mean age of 38 years had more than twice the risk of liver cancer over 10 years than did almost 1,500 treated patients with active disease.

The study investigators concluded that “unnecessary deaths could be prevented through earlier antiviral intervention in select [immune tolerate] patients.”

This finding is one reason “we [AASLD] are rethinking the mantra of not treating the immune tolerant. There is a group that is transitioning” to active disease. “I’m thinking we should really [lower] the age cutoff” to 30 years, as some other groups [European Association for the Study of the Liver and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver] have done, plus “patients feel really good when they know the virus is controlled, and so do physicians,” Dr. Terrault said.
 

Entecavir versus tenofovir

Meanwhile, recent studies have raised the question of whether tenofovir is better than entecavir at preventing liver cancer.

A JAMA Oncology (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5[1]:30-6) study of some 25,000 patients in South Korea found a 32% lower risk of liver cancer when they were treated with tenofovir instead of entecavir. “This led to a lot of concern that maybe we should be moving all our patients to tenofovir,” she said.

Another study, a meta-analysis published earlier this year (Hepatol Int. 2020 Jan;14[1]:105-14), confirmed the difference in cancer risk when it combined those findings with other research. After adjustment for potential confounders, including disease stage and length of follow-up, “the difference disappeared” (hazard ration, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), authors of the meta-analysis reported.

Study patients who received entecavir tended to be “treated many years ago and tended to have more severe [baseline] disease,” Dr. Terrault said.

So “while we see this difference, there’s not enough data yet for us to make a recommendation for our patients to switch from” entecavir to tenofovir. “Until a randomized controlled trial is done, this may remain an issue,” she said.
 

A drug holiday?

Dr. Terrault also reviewed research that suggests nucleoside analogue treatment can be stopped in e-antigen–negative patients after at least 3 years.

“The evidence is increasing that a finite NA [nucleoside analogue] treatment approach leads to higher HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] loss rates, compared with the current long-term NA strategy, and can be considered a rational strategy to induce a functional cure in selected HBeAg-negative patients without cirrhosis who are willing to comply with close follow-up monitoring. ... The current observed functional cure rates” – perhaps about 40% – “would be well worth the effort,” editorialists commenting on the research concluded (Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68[2]:397-400).

It’s an interesting idea, Dr. Terrault said, but the virus will flare 8-12 weeks after treatment withdrawal, which is why it shouldn’t be considered in patients with cirrhosis.

Dr. Terrault is a consultant for AbbVie, Merck, Gilead, and other companies and disclosed grants from those companies and others.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – If an intra-abdominal abscess in a recently diagnosed Crohn’s disease patient is less than 6 cm across with no downstream stenosis, involves only a short segment of bowel, and the patient has no perianal disease, then infliximab and azathioprine after drainage and antibiotics might be enough to heal it, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

That will work in about 30% of patients who hit the mark; the rest will eventually need surgery, said Dr. Regueiro, a clinical researcher who has worked extensively with surgical GI patients and is also a coauthor on the American College of Gastroenterology 2018 Crohn’s disease guidelines (Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;113[4]:481-517).

Intra-abdominal abscesses are common in Crohn’s, usually from an inflammation-induced fistula or sinus in the small intestines that spills luminal contents into the abdominal cavity. Drainage and antibiotics are first line, but then there’s the question of who needs to go to the operating room and who doesn’t.

It has to do with “how much the hole in the intestines is actually reversible. Evidence of a stricture is of paramount importance. If you have a stricture below a fistula and prestenotic dilatation, that’s a high-pressure zone.” It’s a “fixed complication that, in my opinion, no medication is ever going to treat,” he said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

Most patients will need surgery, but for smaller abscesses in qualifying patients, medical treatment can work. “Infliximab is still probably the best medicine for fistulizing disease,” so Dr. Regueiro opts for that if patients haven’t been on it before, in combination with an immunomodulator, generally azathioprine at half the standard dose, to prevent patients from forming antibodies to the infliximab.

When patients do go to the operating room, there is a good chance they will end up with a temporary ostomy, and definitely so if the abscess can’t be drained completely to prevent spillage. The risk of dehiscence and other complications is too great for primary anastomosis.

“I mentally prepare my patients for that; I tell them up front. I never guarantee that they are not going to have an ostomy bag,” Dr. Regueiro said.

He also said abscess formation isn’t necessarily a sign the biologic patients were on before has failed, especially if they were only on it for 6 months or so. More likely, “the disease was too far gone at that point” for short-term treatment to have much of an effect.

So he’s often likely to continue patients on the same biologic after surgery. “We’ve done a lot of study on” this and have “actually found that” patients do well with the approach. He will switch treatment, however, if they otherwise no longer seem to respond to a biologic they have been taking a while, despite adequate serum levels.

There’s no need to delay surgery for patients on biologics. “If they get a biologic the day before, they can still go to the [operating room]. We are not seeing increased postop complications, infections, or wound dehiscence,” he said.

Dr. Regueiro generally restarts biologics 2-4 weeks after surgery, which is enough time to know if there is going to be a surgical complication but not so long that patients will have a Crohn’s relapse. He restarts the maintenance dose, as “it’s not necessary to reinduct patients after such a short break,” he said.

He also noted that opioids and steroids should be avoided with Crohn’s abscesses. Opioids increase the risk of ileus, and steroids the risk of sepsis.

Dr. Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – If an intra-abdominal abscess in a recently diagnosed Crohn’s disease patient is less than 6 cm across with no downstream stenosis, involves only a short segment of bowel, and the patient has no perianal disease, then infliximab and azathioprine after drainage and antibiotics might be enough to heal it, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

That will work in about 30% of patients who hit the mark; the rest will eventually need surgery, said Dr. Regueiro, a clinical researcher who has worked extensively with surgical GI patients and is also a coauthor on the American College of Gastroenterology 2018 Crohn’s disease guidelines (Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;113[4]:481-517).

Intra-abdominal abscesses are common in Crohn’s, usually from an inflammation-induced fistula or sinus in the small intestines that spills luminal contents into the abdominal cavity. Drainage and antibiotics are first line, but then there’s the question of who needs to go to the operating room and who doesn’t.

It has to do with “how much the hole in the intestines is actually reversible. Evidence of a stricture is of paramount importance. If you have a stricture below a fistula and prestenotic dilatation, that’s a high-pressure zone.” It’s a “fixed complication that, in my opinion, no medication is ever going to treat,” he said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

Most patients will need surgery, but for smaller abscesses in qualifying patients, medical treatment can work. “Infliximab is still probably the best medicine for fistulizing disease,” so Dr. Regueiro opts for that if patients haven’t been on it before, in combination with an immunomodulator, generally azathioprine at half the standard dose, to prevent patients from forming antibodies to the infliximab.

When patients do go to the operating room, there is a good chance they will end up with a temporary ostomy, and definitely so if the abscess can’t be drained completely to prevent spillage. The risk of dehiscence and other complications is too great for primary anastomosis.

“I mentally prepare my patients for that; I tell them up front. I never guarantee that they are not going to have an ostomy bag,” Dr. Regueiro said.

He also said abscess formation isn’t necessarily a sign the biologic patients were on before has failed, especially if they were only on it for 6 months or so. More likely, “the disease was too far gone at that point” for short-term treatment to have much of an effect.

So he’s often likely to continue patients on the same biologic after surgery. “We’ve done a lot of study on” this and have “actually found that” patients do well with the approach. He will switch treatment, however, if they otherwise no longer seem to respond to a biologic they have been taking a while, despite adequate serum levels.

There’s no need to delay surgery for patients on biologics. “If they get a biologic the day before, they can still go to the [operating room]. We are not seeing increased postop complications, infections, or wound dehiscence,” he said.

Dr. Regueiro generally restarts biologics 2-4 weeks after surgery, which is enough time to know if there is going to be a surgical complication but not so long that patients will have a Crohn’s relapse. He restarts the maintenance dose, as “it’s not necessary to reinduct patients after such a short break,” he said.

He also noted that opioids and steroids should be avoided with Crohn’s abscesses. Opioids increase the risk of ileus, and steroids the risk of sepsis.

Dr. Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – If an intra-abdominal abscess in a recently diagnosed Crohn’s disease patient is less than 6 cm across with no downstream stenosis, involves only a short segment of bowel, and the patient has no perianal disease, then infliximab and azathioprine after drainage and antibiotics might be enough to heal it, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

That will work in about 30% of patients who hit the mark; the rest will eventually need surgery, said Dr. Regueiro, a clinical researcher who has worked extensively with surgical GI patients and is also a coauthor on the American College of Gastroenterology 2018 Crohn’s disease guidelines (Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;113[4]:481-517).

Intra-abdominal abscesses are common in Crohn’s, usually from an inflammation-induced fistula or sinus in the small intestines that spills luminal contents into the abdominal cavity. Drainage and antibiotics are first line, but then there’s the question of who needs to go to the operating room and who doesn’t.

It has to do with “how much the hole in the intestines is actually reversible. Evidence of a stricture is of paramount importance. If you have a stricture below a fistula and prestenotic dilatation, that’s a high-pressure zone.” It’s a “fixed complication that, in my opinion, no medication is ever going to treat,” he said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

Most patients will need surgery, but for smaller abscesses in qualifying patients, medical treatment can work. “Infliximab is still probably the best medicine for fistulizing disease,” so Dr. Regueiro opts for that if patients haven’t been on it before, in combination with an immunomodulator, generally azathioprine at half the standard dose, to prevent patients from forming antibodies to the infliximab.

When patients do go to the operating room, there is a good chance they will end up with a temporary ostomy, and definitely so if the abscess can’t be drained completely to prevent spillage. The risk of dehiscence and other complications is too great for primary anastomosis.

“I mentally prepare my patients for that; I tell them up front. I never guarantee that they are not going to have an ostomy bag,” Dr. Regueiro said.

He also said abscess formation isn’t necessarily a sign the biologic patients were on before has failed, especially if they were only on it for 6 months or so. More likely, “the disease was too far gone at that point” for short-term treatment to have much of an effect.

So he’s often likely to continue patients on the same biologic after surgery. “We’ve done a lot of study on” this and have “actually found that” patients do well with the approach. He will switch treatment, however, if they otherwise no longer seem to respond to a biologic they have been taking a while, despite adequate serum levels.

There’s no need to delay surgery for patients on biologics. “If they get a biologic the day before, they can still go to the [operating room]. We are not seeing increased postop complications, infections, or wound dehiscence,” he said.

Dr. Regueiro generally restarts biologics 2-4 weeks after surgery, which is enough time to know if there is going to be a surgical complication but not so long that patients will have a Crohn’s relapse. He restarts the maintenance dose, as “it’s not necessary to reinduct patients after such a short break,” he said.

He also noted that opioids and steroids should be avoided with Crohn’s abscesses. Opioids increase the risk of ileus, and steroids the risk of sepsis.

Dr. Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]