User login
In COVID-19 patients, risk of bleeding rivals risk of thromboembolism
There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.
“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.
The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).
Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky
In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.
“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.
Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.
These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.
For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).
“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.
The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.
There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).
These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).
Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.
There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.
“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.
The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.
“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.
The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).
Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky
In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.
“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.
Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.
These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.
For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).
“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.
The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.
There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).
These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).
Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.
There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.
“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.
The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.
“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.
The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).
Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky
In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.
“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.
Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.
These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.
For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).
“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.
The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.
There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).
These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).
Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.
There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.
“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.
The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE GOING BACK TO THE HEART OF CARDIOLOGY MEETING
Updated ACC decision pathway embraces new heart failure treatment strategies
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Guidance issued on COVID vaccine use in patients with dermal fillers
outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.
The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.
“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.
The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.
“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.
In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.
The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.
“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.
The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.
Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.
“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.
As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.
The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
This article was updated 1/7/21.
outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.
The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.
“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.
The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.
“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.
In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.
The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.
“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.
The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.
Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.
“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.
As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.
The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
This article was updated 1/7/21.
outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.
The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.
“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.
The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.
“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.
In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.
The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.
“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.
The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.
Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.
“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.
As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.
The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
This article was updated 1/7/21.
New AK treatments: Local reactions are the price for greater clearance rates
, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
This relationship is not new. In a review of treatments for AKs, Neal Bhatia, MD, a dermatologist and researcher at Therapeutics Dermatology, San Diego, advised that most effective agents trade a higher risk of inflammatory reactions – including erythema, flaking, and scaling – for greater therapeutic gain. In many cases, local skin reactions are an inevitable consequence of their mechanism of action.
Data from the completed phase 3 trials of tirbanibulin 1% ointment (KX01-AK-003 and KX01-AK-004), are illustrative. (Tirbanibulin 1% ointment was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in mid-December, after the Coastal Derm meeting was held.)
In the phase 3 trials, which have not yet been published, tirbanibulin, an inhibitor of Src kinase, which has an antiproliferative action, was four to five times more effective than vehicle by day 57 for overall complete clearance (P < .0001) of AKs and complete clearance of the face (P < .0001), but rates of local skin reactions were generally two to three times higher, according to Dr. Bhatia.
In the KX01-AK-004 trial, for example, 61% of patients had complete clearance of the face, versus 14% of those randomized to vehicle. The difference for overall partial clearance (76% vs. 20%; P < .0001), partial clearance of the face (80% vs. 22%; P < .0001), and partial clearance of the scalp (69% vs. 15%; P < .0001) was even greater. When compared with placebo, tirbanibulin was also associated with greater rates of erythema (90% vs. 31%), crusting (45% vs. 8%), flaking (84% vs. 35%), swelling (38% vs. 2%) and erosions or ulcers (12% vs. 1%).
Although these events might be a challenge with regard to tolerability for some patients, they might best be described as evidence that the drug is working.
“Local skin reactions are anticipated. They are not adverse events. They are not side effects,” Dr. Bhatia said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. “Patients are going to get red, and you need to counsel patients about the 5 days when they can expected to be red. It is a sign of the civil war, if you will, that your skin is taking on with the actinic keratoses.”
Both 3- and 5-day courses of the drug were tested in the clinical trials. (The approved prescribing information recommends treatment on the face or scalp once a day for 5 consecutive days).
Other studies evaluating treatments for AKs have also associated an increased risk of local skin reactions with greater efficacy, Dr. Bhatia noted. As an example, he cited a phase 4 study comparing 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel to diclofenac sodium 3% gel in people with facial and scalp AK lesions.
At the end of the 3-month study, complete clearance was higher among those on ingenol mebutate, which was applied for 3 days, when compared with diclofenac sodium gel, which was applied daily for 3 months (34% vs. 23%; P = .006). However, patients randomized to ingenol mebutate gel had to first weather a higher rate of application-site erythema (19% vs. 12%) before achieving a greater level of clearance.
The correlation between efficacy and local reactions at the site of treatment application emphasizes the importance of educating patients about this relationship and in engaging in shared decision-making, Dr. Bhatia said.
“It is basically a tradeoff between local skin reactions, between frequency [of applications], compliance, and, of course, duration of therapy, even though both drugs served their purposes well,” said Dr. Bhatia, referring to the comparison of the ingenol mebutate and diclofenac gels.
Although not absolute, efficacy and tolerability were also generally inversely related in a recent four-treatment comparison of four commonly used field-directed therapies. In that trial, the primary endpoint was at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the number of AKs to 12 months after treatment ended.
For that outcome, 5% fluorouracil (5-FU) cream (74.7%) was significantly more effective than 5% imiquimod cream (53.9%), methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (37.7%), and 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel (28.9%). Also, 5-FU treatment was associated with the moderate or severe erythema (81.5%), severe pain (16.%), and a severe burning sensation (21.5%).
Other therapies on the horizon, some of which are already available in Europe or Canada, show a relationship between efficacy and local skin reactions. Of two that Dr. Bhatia cited, 5-FU and salicylic acid combined in a solution and 5-FU and calcipotriene combined in an ointment have demonstrated high rates of efficacy but at the cost of substantial rates of erythema and flaking.
Transient skin reactions can be made acceptable to patients who are informed of the goals of clearing AKs, which includes lowering the risk of cancer, as well as cosmetic improvement. In the phase 4 study comparing ingenol mebutate gel to diclofenac sodium gel, the end-of-study global satisfaction rates were higher (P < .001) for those randomized to the most effective therapy despite the local skin reactions.
Preparing patients for the consequences of therapy for AKs is essential, because optimal therapy involves treating uninvolved skin, according to Hassan Galadari, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, United Arab Emirates University, Dubai. A coauthor of a recent review article on actinic keratoses, Dr. Galadari said in an interview that field treatment means patients might have local skin reactions where they did not previously have lesions.
“Actinic damage may not be visible with the naked eye. That is why field treatment, which is applying medicine in adjacent areas that may appear normal, is indicated,” he said. As a result, “areas that otherwise may have appeared as normal start to react by becoming red, itchy, and even inflamed.”
He agreed with Dr. Bhatia that local skin reactions are typically the price paid for effective control of these precancerous lesions.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Bhatia reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Almirall and other companies with products relevant to AK therapies.
, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
This relationship is not new. In a review of treatments for AKs, Neal Bhatia, MD, a dermatologist and researcher at Therapeutics Dermatology, San Diego, advised that most effective agents trade a higher risk of inflammatory reactions – including erythema, flaking, and scaling – for greater therapeutic gain. In many cases, local skin reactions are an inevitable consequence of their mechanism of action.
Data from the completed phase 3 trials of tirbanibulin 1% ointment (KX01-AK-003 and KX01-AK-004), are illustrative. (Tirbanibulin 1% ointment was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in mid-December, after the Coastal Derm meeting was held.)
In the phase 3 trials, which have not yet been published, tirbanibulin, an inhibitor of Src kinase, which has an antiproliferative action, was four to five times more effective than vehicle by day 57 for overall complete clearance (P < .0001) of AKs and complete clearance of the face (P < .0001), but rates of local skin reactions were generally two to three times higher, according to Dr. Bhatia.
In the KX01-AK-004 trial, for example, 61% of patients had complete clearance of the face, versus 14% of those randomized to vehicle. The difference for overall partial clearance (76% vs. 20%; P < .0001), partial clearance of the face (80% vs. 22%; P < .0001), and partial clearance of the scalp (69% vs. 15%; P < .0001) was even greater. When compared with placebo, tirbanibulin was also associated with greater rates of erythema (90% vs. 31%), crusting (45% vs. 8%), flaking (84% vs. 35%), swelling (38% vs. 2%) and erosions or ulcers (12% vs. 1%).
Although these events might be a challenge with regard to tolerability for some patients, they might best be described as evidence that the drug is working.
“Local skin reactions are anticipated. They are not adverse events. They are not side effects,” Dr. Bhatia said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. “Patients are going to get red, and you need to counsel patients about the 5 days when they can expected to be red. It is a sign of the civil war, if you will, that your skin is taking on with the actinic keratoses.”
Both 3- and 5-day courses of the drug were tested in the clinical trials. (The approved prescribing information recommends treatment on the face or scalp once a day for 5 consecutive days).
Other studies evaluating treatments for AKs have also associated an increased risk of local skin reactions with greater efficacy, Dr. Bhatia noted. As an example, he cited a phase 4 study comparing 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel to diclofenac sodium 3% gel in people with facial and scalp AK lesions.
At the end of the 3-month study, complete clearance was higher among those on ingenol mebutate, which was applied for 3 days, when compared with diclofenac sodium gel, which was applied daily for 3 months (34% vs. 23%; P = .006). However, patients randomized to ingenol mebutate gel had to first weather a higher rate of application-site erythema (19% vs. 12%) before achieving a greater level of clearance.
The correlation between efficacy and local reactions at the site of treatment application emphasizes the importance of educating patients about this relationship and in engaging in shared decision-making, Dr. Bhatia said.
“It is basically a tradeoff between local skin reactions, between frequency [of applications], compliance, and, of course, duration of therapy, even though both drugs served their purposes well,” said Dr. Bhatia, referring to the comparison of the ingenol mebutate and diclofenac gels.
Although not absolute, efficacy and tolerability were also generally inversely related in a recent four-treatment comparison of four commonly used field-directed therapies. In that trial, the primary endpoint was at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the number of AKs to 12 months after treatment ended.
For that outcome, 5% fluorouracil (5-FU) cream (74.7%) was significantly more effective than 5% imiquimod cream (53.9%), methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (37.7%), and 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel (28.9%). Also, 5-FU treatment was associated with the moderate or severe erythema (81.5%), severe pain (16.%), and a severe burning sensation (21.5%).
Other therapies on the horizon, some of which are already available in Europe or Canada, show a relationship between efficacy and local skin reactions. Of two that Dr. Bhatia cited, 5-FU and salicylic acid combined in a solution and 5-FU and calcipotriene combined in an ointment have demonstrated high rates of efficacy but at the cost of substantial rates of erythema and flaking.
Transient skin reactions can be made acceptable to patients who are informed of the goals of clearing AKs, which includes lowering the risk of cancer, as well as cosmetic improvement. In the phase 4 study comparing ingenol mebutate gel to diclofenac sodium gel, the end-of-study global satisfaction rates were higher (P < .001) for those randomized to the most effective therapy despite the local skin reactions.
Preparing patients for the consequences of therapy for AKs is essential, because optimal therapy involves treating uninvolved skin, according to Hassan Galadari, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, United Arab Emirates University, Dubai. A coauthor of a recent review article on actinic keratoses, Dr. Galadari said in an interview that field treatment means patients might have local skin reactions where they did not previously have lesions.
“Actinic damage may not be visible with the naked eye. That is why field treatment, which is applying medicine in adjacent areas that may appear normal, is indicated,” he said. As a result, “areas that otherwise may have appeared as normal start to react by becoming red, itchy, and even inflamed.”
He agreed with Dr. Bhatia that local skin reactions are typically the price paid for effective control of these precancerous lesions.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Bhatia reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Almirall and other companies with products relevant to AK therapies.
, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
This relationship is not new. In a review of treatments for AKs, Neal Bhatia, MD, a dermatologist and researcher at Therapeutics Dermatology, San Diego, advised that most effective agents trade a higher risk of inflammatory reactions – including erythema, flaking, and scaling – for greater therapeutic gain. In many cases, local skin reactions are an inevitable consequence of their mechanism of action.
Data from the completed phase 3 trials of tirbanibulin 1% ointment (KX01-AK-003 and KX01-AK-004), are illustrative. (Tirbanibulin 1% ointment was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in mid-December, after the Coastal Derm meeting was held.)
In the phase 3 trials, which have not yet been published, tirbanibulin, an inhibitor of Src kinase, which has an antiproliferative action, was four to five times more effective than vehicle by day 57 for overall complete clearance (P < .0001) of AKs and complete clearance of the face (P < .0001), but rates of local skin reactions were generally two to three times higher, according to Dr. Bhatia.
In the KX01-AK-004 trial, for example, 61% of patients had complete clearance of the face, versus 14% of those randomized to vehicle. The difference for overall partial clearance (76% vs. 20%; P < .0001), partial clearance of the face (80% vs. 22%; P < .0001), and partial clearance of the scalp (69% vs. 15%; P < .0001) was even greater. When compared with placebo, tirbanibulin was also associated with greater rates of erythema (90% vs. 31%), crusting (45% vs. 8%), flaking (84% vs. 35%), swelling (38% vs. 2%) and erosions or ulcers (12% vs. 1%).
Although these events might be a challenge with regard to tolerability for some patients, they might best be described as evidence that the drug is working.
“Local skin reactions are anticipated. They are not adverse events. They are not side effects,” Dr. Bhatia said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. “Patients are going to get red, and you need to counsel patients about the 5 days when they can expected to be red. It is a sign of the civil war, if you will, that your skin is taking on with the actinic keratoses.”
Both 3- and 5-day courses of the drug were tested in the clinical trials. (The approved prescribing information recommends treatment on the face or scalp once a day for 5 consecutive days).
Other studies evaluating treatments for AKs have also associated an increased risk of local skin reactions with greater efficacy, Dr. Bhatia noted. As an example, he cited a phase 4 study comparing 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel to diclofenac sodium 3% gel in people with facial and scalp AK lesions.
At the end of the 3-month study, complete clearance was higher among those on ingenol mebutate, which was applied for 3 days, when compared with diclofenac sodium gel, which was applied daily for 3 months (34% vs. 23%; P = .006). However, patients randomized to ingenol mebutate gel had to first weather a higher rate of application-site erythema (19% vs. 12%) before achieving a greater level of clearance.
The correlation between efficacy and local reactions at the site of treatment application emphasizes the importance of educating patients about this relationship and in engaging in shared decision-making, Dr. Bhatia said.
“It is basically a tradeoff between local skin reactions, between frequency [of applications], compliance, and, of course, duration of therapy, even though both drugs served their purposes well,” said Dr. Bhatia, referring to the comparison of the ingenol mebutate and diclofenac gels.
Although not absolute, efficacy and tolerability were also generally inversely related in a recent four-treatment comparison of four commonly used field-directed therapies. In that trial, the primary endpoint was at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the number of AKs to 12 months after treatment ended.
For that outcome, 5% fluorouracil (5-FU) cream (74.7%) was significantly more effective than 5% imiquimod cream (53.9%), methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (37.7%), and 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel (28.9%). Also, 5-FU treatment was associated with the moderate or severe erythema (81.5%), severe pain (16.%), and a severe burning sensation (21.5%).
Other therapies on the horizon, some of which are already available in Europe or Canada, show a relationship between efficacy and local skin reactions. Of two that Dr. Bhatia cited, 5-FU and salicylic acid combined in a solution and 5-FU and calcipotriene combined in an ointment have demonstrated high rates of efficacy but at the cost of substantial rates of erythema and flaking.
Transient skin reactions can be made acceptable to patients who are informed of the goals of clearing AKs, which includes lowering the risk of cancer, as well as cosmetic improvement. In the phase 4 study comparing ingenol mebutate gel to diclofenac sodium gel, the end-of-study global satisfaction rates were higher (P < .001) for those randomized to the most effective therapy despite the local skin reactions.
Preparing patients for the consequences of therapy for AKs is essential, because optimal therapy involves treating uninvolved skin, according to Hassan Galadari, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, United Arab Emirates University, Dubai. A coauthor of a recent review article on actinic keratoses, Dr. Galadari said in an interview that field treatment means patients might have local skin reactions where they did not previously have lesions.
“Actinic damage may not be visible with the naked eye. That is why field treatment, which is applying medicine in adjacent areas that may appear normal, is indicated,” he said. As a result, “areas that otherwise may have appeared as normal start to react by becoming red, itchy, and even inflamed.”
He agreed with Dr. Bhatia that local skin reactions are typically the price paid for effective control of these precancerous lesions.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Bhatia reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Almirall and other companies with products relevant to AK therapies.
FROM COASTAL DERM
HPV vaccine appears effective for treating warts, particularly in children
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the prevention of HPV-associated genital warts and neoplasia, appears to be an effective and perhaps underappreciated treatment of existing cutaneous warts, according to expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology symposium, held virtually.
, but a recently published review provides strong evidence that this is a practical clinical strategy, according to Theodore Rosen, MD, professor of dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“Clearly, if you have someone, particularly a youngster, and you’re having trouble getting rid of their warts and they are age 9 years or above – and they need the vaccine anyhow – that’s a win-win proposition,” Dr. Rosen said.
The current nonavalent HPV vaccine is approved for individuals from age 9 to age 45. Although the CDC recommends routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years, it allows earlier vaccination within the label.
The recently published and updated evidence of a benefit from treatment comes from a systematic literature review. For the review, 63 articles were drawn from the PubMed and Cochrane databases. The studies yielded 4,439 patients with cutaneous warts at the time they received the HPV vaccine or who specifically received vaccine as a treatment strategy.
As has been suggested previously in the case series and in a limited number of prospective studies, the majority of warts, including cutaneous warts and anogenital warts, resolved following vaccine administration.
“Mostly these were common warts, plantar warts, and flat warts,” Dr. Rosen said, but the paper also reported successful treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, squamous cell carcinomas, and basal cell carcinomas.
Case reports and small studies associating HPV vaccine with successful resolution of warts are easy to find in the literature. For example, 60% of patients achieved a complete response and 30% a partial response to HPV vaccine in one small prospective study of 26 patients with genital warts. Following vaccination, no recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of more than 8 months.
In the review paper, most of the cases involved patients who received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Dr. Rosen noted. Only one received the updated nonavalent vaccine, which, in addition to protection against the 6, 11, 16, and 18 subtypes extends protection to subtypes 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.
“You would expect the nonavalent vaccine to provide the same protection. It is the same vaccine. It just offers activity against more subtypes,” Dr. Rosen said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He reported that he personally has used the nonavalent vaccine successfully to treat a cutaneous wart.
The nonavalent vaccine can be administered in just two doses for those who receive the first dose before age 15. In others, it is given in three doses at 1- to 2-month intervals, according to Dr. Rosen. He said the efficacy for preventing genital warts and most HPV-related neoplasia exceeds 90%, although it is lower for penile and anal cancer. The protection extends for at least 10 years, but he said that he believes that it is likely to be longer.
“The HPV vaccine is really, really safe,” Dr. Rosen said. Besides injection-site reactions, the most common adverse event is syncope. For this reason, patients are advised to stay seated for 30 minutes after administration.
There is some evidence for cross-immunity for HPV subtypes not covered by the vaccine, particularly among children, Dr. Rosen commented. Citing the review article, he said that, although almost all HPV-associated warts resolve in children when treated with the vaccine, response is somewhat lower in adolescents and further reduced in adults.
In an interview, the senior author of the recent literature review, Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, University of California, Irvine, agreed with Dr. Rosen about the value of HPV vaccine for patients not responding to conventional therapies for HPV-related cutaneous warts.
“I think HPV vaccine is an excellent option for those patients, even older ones at 45 years of age if cost is not an issue,” she said. She did offer a caveat. In a recent statement from the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) on a world shortage of HPV vaccine, it was estimated that supplies might be limited for the next 3-5 years.
Given this shortage, “obtaining them currently may prove to be difficult,” she cautioned.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the prevention of HPV-associated genital warts and neoplasia, appears to be an effective and perhaps underappreciated treatment of existing cutaneous warts, according to expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology symposium, held virtually.
, but a recently published review provides strong evidence that this is a practical clinical strategy, according to Theodore Rosen, MD, professor of dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“Clearly, if you have someone, particularly a youngster, and you’re having trouble getting rid of their warts and they are age 9 years or above – and they need the vaccine anyhow – that’s a win-win proposition,” Dr. Rosen said.
The current nonavalent HPV vaccine is approved for individuals from age 9 to age 45. Although the CDC recommends routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years, it allows earlier vaccination within the label.
The recently published and updated evidence of a benefit from treatment comes from a systematic literature review. For the review, 63 articles were drawn from the PubMed and Cochrane databases. The studies yielded 4,439 patients with cutaneous warts at the time they received the HPV vaccine or who specifically received vaccine as a treatment strategy.
As has been suggested previously in the case series and in a limited number of prospective studies, the majority of warts, including cutaneous warts and anogenital warts, resolved following vaccine administration.
“Mostly these were common warts, plantar warts, and flat warts,” Dr. Rosen said, but the paper also reported successful treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, squamous cell carcinomas, and basal cell carcinomas.
Case reports and small studies associating HPV vaccine with successful resolution of warts are easy to find in the literature. For example, 60% of patients achieved a complete response and 30% a partial response to HPV vaccine in one small prospective study of 26 patients with genital warts. Following vaccination, no recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of more than 8 months.
In the review paper, most of the cases involved patients who received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Dr. Rosen noted. Only one received the updated nonavalent vaccine, which, in addition to protection against the 6, 11, 16, and 18 subtypes extends protection to subtypes 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.
“You would expect the nonavalent vaccine to provide the same protection. It is the same vaccine. It just offers activity against more subtypes,” Dr. Rosen said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He reported that he personally has used the nonavalent vaccine successfully to treat a cutaneous wart.
The nonavalent vaccine can be administered in just two doses for those who receive the first dose before age 15. In others, it is given in three doses at 1- to 2-month intervals, according to Dr. Rosen. He said the efficacy for preventing genital warts and most HPV-related neoplasia exceeds 90%, although it is lower for penile and anal cancer. The protection extends for at least 10 years, but he said that he believes that it is likely to be longer.
“The HPV vaccine is really, really safe,” Dr. Rosen said. Besides injection-site reactions, the most common adverse event is syncope. For this reason, patients are advised to stay seated for 30 minutes after administration.
There is some evidence for cross-immunity for HPV subtypes not covered by the vaccine, particularly among children, Dr. Rosen commented. Citing the review article, he said that, although almost all HPV-associated warts resolve in children when treated with the vaccine, response is somewhat lower in adolescents and further reduced in adults.
In an interview, the senior author of the recent literature review, Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, University of California, Irvine, agreed with Dr. Rosen about the value of HPV vaccine for patients not responding to conventional therapies for HPV-related cutaneous warts.
“I think HPV vaccine is an excellent option for those patients, even older ones at 45 years of age if cost is not an issue,” she said. She did offer a caveat. In a recent statement from the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) on a world shortage of HPV vaccine, it was estimated that supplies might be limited for the next 3-5 years.
Given this shortage, “obtaining them currently may prove to be difficult,” she cautioned.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the prevention of HPV-associated genital warts and neoplasia, appears to be an effective and perhaps underappreciated treatment of existing cutaneous warts, according to expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology symposium, held virtually.
, but a recently published review provides strong evidence that this is a practical clinical strategy, according to Theodore Rosen, MD, professor of dermatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“Clearly, if you have someone, particularly a youngster, and you’re having trouble getting rid of their warts and they are age 9 years or above – and they need the vaccine anyhow – that’s a win-win proposition,” Dr. Rosen said.
The current nonavalent HPV vaccine is approved for individuals from age 9 to age 45. Although the CDC recommends routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years, it allows earlier vaccination within the label.
The recently published and updated evidence of a benefit from treatment comes from a systematic literature review. For the review, 63 articles were drawn from the PubMed and Cochrane databases. The studies yielded 4,439 patients with cutaneous warts at the time they received the HPV vaccine or who specifically received vaccine as a treatment strategy.
As has been suggested previously in the case series and in a limited number of prospective studies, the majority of warts, including cutaneous warts and anogenital warts, resolved following vaccine administration.
“Mostly these were common warts, plantar warts, and flat warts,” Dr. Rosen said, but the paper also reported successful treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, squamous cell carcinomas, and basal cell carcinomas.
Case reports and small studies associating HPV vaccine with successful resolution of warts are easy to find in the literature. For example, 60% of patients achieved a complete response and 30% a partial response to HPV vaccine in one small prospective study of 26 patients with genital warts. Following vaccination, no recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of more than 8 months.
In the review paper, most of the cases involved patients who received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Dr. Rosen noted. Only one received the updated nonavalent vaccine, which, in addition to protection against the 6, 11, 16, and 18 subtypes extends protection to subtypes 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.
“You would expect the nonavalent vaccine to provide the same protection. It is the same vaccine. It just offers activity against more subtypes,” Dr. Rosen said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He reported that he personally has used the nonavalent vaccine successfully to treat a cutaneous wart.
The nonavalent vaccine can be administered in just two doses for those who receive the first dose before age 15. In others, it is given in three doses at 1- to 2-month intervals, according to Dr. Rosen. He said the efficacy for preventing genital warts and most HPV-related neoplasia exceeds 90%, although it is lower for penile and anal cancer. The protection extends for at least 10 years, but he said that he believes that it is likely to be longer.
“The HPV vaccine is really, really safe,” Dr. Rosen said. Besides injection-site reactions, the most common adverse event is syncope. For this reason, patients are advised to stay seated for 30 minutes after administration.
There is some evidence for cross-immunity for HPV subtypes not covered by the vaccine, particularly among children, Dr. Rosen commented. Citing the review article, he said that, although almost all HPV-associated warts resolve in children when treated with the vaccine, response is somewhat lower in adolescents and further reduced in adults.
In an interview, the senior author of the recent literature review, Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, University of California, Irvine, agreed with Dr. Rosen about the value of HPV vaccine for patients not responding to conventional therapies for HPV-related cutaneous warts.
“I think HPV vaccine is an excellent option for those patients, even older ones at 45 years of age if cost is not an issue,” she said. She did offer a caveat. In a recent statement from the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) on a world shortage of HPV vaccine, it was estimated that supplies might be limited for the next 3-5 years.
Given this shortage, “obtaining them currently may prove to be difficult,” she cautioned.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
FROM COASTAL DERM
Expert picks top pediatric dermatology studies of 2020
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at the University of California, San Diego, presented a list of studies, some of which resulted in approvals of pediatric indications in 2020, that he believes deserve attention.
Crisaborole
Crisaborole ointment, 2% is now approved for topical treatment of children aged as young as 3 months, based on the results of the CrisADe CARE1 phase 4 study. In this open-label study of infants aged from 3 months to under 2 years with mild to moderate AD, treated with crisaborole twice a day for 28 days, the mean reduction from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was 49.6% on day 15 and 57.5% on day 29. The most common side effects were erythema and application-site pain, but neither occurred in more than 4% of patients. The discontinuation rate was less than 3%.
When the indication for treatment of young children down to age 3 months (from 24 months) was granted by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2020, crisaborole, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, became the only nonsteroidal approved for treatment of AD in children aged younger than 2 years, Dr. Eichenfield pointed out.
Tacrolimus
The topical calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus (Protopic) poses no detectable risk of cancer in children treated for AD, according to a prospective, multinational study that followed nearly 8,000 children with AD who used topical tacrolimus for at least 6 weeks over 10 years. With 44,469 person-years of follow-up in a population with at least 6 weeks of exposure to tacrolimus, there were six confirmed cancers, a rate not different than background rates, and no lymphomas.
“I have always tried to educate my patients about the potential use of the topical calcineurin inhibitors while reassuring them that the data did not support significant risk,” Dr. Eichenfield said. However, a large set of data reconfirming a low risk of cancer, although not definitive, “are really nice to have.”
Ruxolitinib
For treatment of AD in children aged as young as 12 years, a cream formulation of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor, met its primary outcomes in the phase 3 TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 trials. (These data are not yet published but were presented at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium in April 2020.) The primary endpoint of 75% EASI clearance (EASI-75) was achieved in approximately 62% of patients treated with the 1.5% dose of ruxolitinib twice daily. This was a highly significant advantage over vehicle in both studies (P < .0001).
The EASI-75 rates at 8 weeks for the 0.75% formulation, at 56% and 51.5% for the TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 trials, respectively, were lower but also superior (P < .0001) to the 24.6% and 14.4% response rates on vehicle, respectively.
Emphasizing a consistent benefit on multiple secondary endpoints, including the “really early itch decrease,” Dr. Eichenfield described the phase 3 data as “really excellent results.” The data have not yet led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib for AD, but approval seems likely. Dr. Eichenfield noted that other drugs in the same class, such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have also demonstrated promising efficacy in children aged 12 years or older.
Dupilumab
Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, was approved in May, 2020, for the treatment of AD in children ages 6-11 years, on the basis of a recently published phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled children aged between 6 and 11 years, comparing dupilumab and topical corticosteroids and placebo plus topical corticosteroids. Severe involvement was an entry criterion.
At 16 weeks, an EASI-75 response was achieved by 67% of the group randomized to 200 mg of dupilumab administered every 2 weeks and 70% of the group randomized to 300 mg every 4 weeks versus 27% of those randomized to placebo. More patients in the dupilumab arms developed conjunctivitis (10.8% vs. 4.7%) and had injection-site reactions (8.5% vs. 3.5%), but the monoclonal antibody was otherwise well tolerated and safe.
These data suggest that younger patients with severe disease “do, if anything, better than adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He cautioned that avoiding live vaccines, which is recommended in patients on dupilumab, “is likely more of an issue in children.”
Ixekizumab
Ixekizumab has been approved for pediatric patients aged as young as 6 years who are eligible for systemic therapy on the basis of a phase 3 trial. For the primary endpoint of 75% clearance on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, the response rates were 89% for the IL-17 inhibitor administered every 4 weeks and 25% for placebo. The study also associated ixekizumab with a significant improvement in quality of life.
The availability of more targeted therapies for children are likely. In Europe, secukinumab, another IL-17 inhibitor, was approved for treatment in pediatric patients this past summer, Dr. Eichenfield noted. These data are not yet published, but he expects targeted therapies to join a growing list of biologics already approved in children.
For drugs with established efficacy and safety, he advised, “look at your pediatric psoriasis patients and don’t be wimpy.” In children with poorly controlled psoriasis, he concluded these drugs have been associated with improved quality of life.
In November 2019, the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation published psoriasis management guidelines for children. Not all of the most recently approved therapies are included in these guidelines, which are the first to provide specific recommendations for children, but Dr. Eichenfield also included this publication among his top picks for important contributions to the pediatric dermatology literature in 2020.
Dr. Eichenfield reported financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies that manufacture dermatologic products, including those for the diseases he discussed.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at the University of California, San Diego, presented a list of studies, some of which resulted in approvals of pediatric indications in 2020, that he believes deserve attention.
Crisaborole
Crisaborole ointment, 2% is now approved for topical treatment of children aged as young as 3 months, based on the results of the CrisADe CARE1 phase 4 study. In this open-label study of infants aged from 3 months to under 2 years with mild to moderate AD, treated with crisaborole twice a day for 28 days, the mean reduction from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was 49.6% on day 15 and 57.5% on day 29. The most common side effects were erythema and application-site pain, but neither occurred in more than 4% of patients. The discontinuation rate was less than 3%.
When the indication for treatment of young children down to age 3 months (from 24 months) was granted by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2020, crisaborole, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, became the only nonsteroidal approved for treatment of AD in children aged younger than 2 years, Dr. Eichenfield pointed out.
Tacrolimus
The topical calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus (Protopic) poses no detectable risk of cancer in children treated for AD, according to a prospective, multinational study that followed nearly 8,000 children with AD who used topical tacrolimus for at least 6 weeks over 10 years. With 44,469 person-years of follow-up in a population with at least 6 weeks of exposure to tacrolimus, there were six confirmed cancers, a rate not different than background rates, and no lymphomas.
“I have always tried to educate my patients about the potential use of the topical calcineurin inhibitors while reassuring them that the data did not support significant risk,” Dr. Eichenfield said. However, a large set of data reconfirming a low risk of cancer, although not definitive, “are really nice to have.”
Ruxolitinib
For treatment of AD in children aged as young as 12 years, a cream formulation of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor, met its primary outcomes in the phase 3 TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 trials. (These data are not yet published but were presented at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium in April 2020.) The primary endpoint of 75% EASI clearance (EASI-75) was achieved in approximately 62% of patients treated with the 1.5% dose of ruxolitinib twice daily. This was a highly significant advantage over vehicle in both studies (P < .0001).
The EASI-75 rates at 8 weeks for the 0.75% formulation, at 56% and 51.5% for the TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 trials, respectively, were lower but also superior (P < .0001) to the 24.6% and 14.4% response rates on vehicle, respectively.
Emphasizing a consistent benefit on multiple secondary endpoints, including the “really early itch decrease,” Dr. Eichenfield described the phase 3 data as “really excellent results.” The data have not yet led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib for AD, but approval seems likely. Dr. Eichenfield noted that other drugs in the same class, such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have also demonstrated promising efficacy in children aged 12 years or older.
Dupilumab
Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, was approved in May, 2020, for the treatment of AD in children ages 6-11 years, on the basis of a recently published phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled children aged between 6 and 11 years, comparing dupilumab and topical corticosteroids and placebo plus topical corticosteroids. Severe involvement was an entry criterion.
At 16 weeks, an EASI-75 response was achieved by 67% of the group randomized to 200 mg of dupilumab administered every 2 weeks and 70% of the group randomized to 300 mg every 4 weeks versus 27% of those randomized to placebo. More patients in the dupilumab arms developed conjunctivitis (10.8% vs. 4.7%) and had injection-site reactions (8.5% vs. 3.5%), but the monoclonal antibody was otherwise well tolerated and safe.
These data suggest that younger patients with severe disease “do, if anything, better than adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He cautioned that avoiding live vaccines, which is recommended in patients on dupilumab, “is likely more of an issue in children.”
Ixekizumab
Ixekizumab has been approved for pediatric patients aged as young as 6 years who are eligible for systemic therapy on the basis of a phase 3 trial. For the primary endpoint of 75% clearance on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, the response rates were 89% for the IL-17 inhibitor administered every 4 weeks and 25% for placebo. The study also associated ixekizumab with a significant improvement in quality of life.
The availability of more targeted therapies for children are likely. In Europe, secukinumab, another IL-17 inhibitor, was approved for treatment in pediatric patients this past summer, Dr. Eichenfield noted. These data are not yet published, but he expects targeted therapies to join a growing list of biologics already approved in children.
For drugs with established efficacy and safety, he advised, “look at your pediatric psoriasis patients and don’t be wimpy.” In children with poorly controlled psoriasis, he concluded these drugs have been associated with improved quality of life.
In November 2019, the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation published psoriasis management guidelines for children. Not all of the most recently approved therapies are included in these guidelines, which are the first to provide specific recommendations for children, but Dr. Eichenfield also included this publication among his top picks for important contributions to the pediatric dermatology literature in 2020.
Dr. Eichenfield reported financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies that manufacture dermatologic products, including those for the diseases he discussed.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at the University of California, San Diego, presented a list of studies, some of which resulted in approvals of pediatric indications in 2020, that he believes deserve attention.
Crisaborole
Crisaborole ointment, 2% is now approved for topical treatment of children aged as young as 3 months, based on the results of the CrisADe CARE1 phase 4 study. In this open-label study of infants aged from 3 months to under 2 years with mild to moderate AD, treated with crisaborole twice a day for 28 days, the mean reduction from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was 49.6% on day 15 and 57.5% on day 29. The most common side effects were erythema and application-site pain, but neither occurred in more than 4% of patients. The discontinuation rate was less than 3%.
When the indication for treatment of young children down to age 3 months (from 24 months) was granted by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2020, crisaborole, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, became the only nonsteroidal approved for treatment of AD in children aged younger than 2 years, Dr. Eichenfield pointed out.
Tacrolimus
The topical calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus (Protopic) poses no detectable risk of cancer in children treated for AD, according to a prospective, multinational study that followed nearly 8,000 children with AD who used topical tacrolimus for at least 6 weeks over 10 years. With 44,469 person-years of follow-up in a population with at least 6 weeks of exposure to tacrolimus, there were six confirmed cancers, a rate not different than background rates, and no lymphomas.
“I have always tried to educate my patients about the potential use of the topical calcineurin inhibitors while reassuring them that the data did not support significant risk,” Dr. Eichenfield said. However, a large set of data reconfirming a low risk of cancer, although not definitive, “are really nice to have.”
Ruxolitinib
For treatment of AD in children aged as young as 12 years, a cream formulation of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor, met its primary outcomes in the phase 3 TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 trials. (These data are not yet published but were presented at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium in April 2020.) The primary endpoint of 75% EASI clearance (EASI-75) was achieved in approximately 62% of patients treated with the 1.5% dose of ruxolitinib twice daily. This was a highly significant advantage over vehicle in both studies (P < .0001).
The EASI-75 rates at 8 weeks for the 0.75% formulation, at 56% and 51.5% for the TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 trials, respectively, were lower but also superior (P < .0001) to the 24.6% and 14.4% response rates on vehicle, respectively.
Emphasizing a consistent benefit on multiple secondary endpoints, including the “really early itch decrease,” Dr. Eichenfield described the phase 3 data as “really excellent results.” The data have not yet led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib for AD, but approval seems likely. Dr. Eichenfield noted that other drugs in the same class, such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have also demonstrated promising efficacy in children aged 12 years or older.
Dupilumab
Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, was approved in May, 2020, for the treatment of AD in children ages 6-11 years, on the basis of a recently published phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled children aged between 6 and 11 years, comparing dupilumab and topical corticosteroids and placebo plus topical corticosteroids. Severe involvement was an entry criterion.
At 16 weeks, an EASI-75 response was achieved by 67% of the group randomized to 200 mg of dupilumab administered every 2 weeks and 70% of the group randomized to 300 mg every 4 weeks versus 27% of those randomized to placebo. More patients in the dupilumab arms developed conjunctivitis (10.8% vs. 4.7%) and had injection-site reactions (8.5% vs. 3.5%), but the monoclonal antibody was otherwise well tolerated and safe.
These data suggest that younger patients with severe disease “do, if anything, better than adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. He cautioned that avoiding live vaccines, which is recommended in patients on dupilumab, “is likely more of an issue in children.”
Ixekizumab
Ixekizumab has been approved for pediatric patients aged as young as 6 years who are eligible for systemic therapy on the basis of a phase 3 trial. For the primary endpoint of 75% clearance on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, the response rates were 89% for the IL-17 inhibitor administered every 4 weeks and 25% for placebo. The study also associated ixekizumab with a significant improvement in quality of life.
The availability of more targeted therapies for children are likely. In Europe, secukinumab, another IL-17 inhibitor, was approved for treatment in pediatric patients this past summer, Dr. Eichenfield noted. These data are not yet published, but he expects targeted therapies to join a growing list of biologics already approved in children.
For drugs with established efficacy and safety, he advised, “look at your pediatric psoriasis patients and don’t be wimpy.” In children with poorly controlled psoriasis, he concluded these drugs have been associated with improved quality of life.
In November 2019, the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation published psoriasis management guidelines for children. Not all of the most recently approved therapies are included in these guidelines, which are the first to provide specific recommendations for children, but Dr. Eichenfield also included this publication among his top picks for important contributions to the pediatric dermatology literature in 2020.
Dr. Eichenfield reported financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies that manufacture dermatologic products, including those for the diseases he discussed.
This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
FROM COASTAL DERM
Strategies for tracking SARS-CoV-2 could help detect next pandemic
Two recently published studies indicate that COVID-19 infections were already circulating in the United States in December 2019. The question is whether these methodologies that could be applied to track the next pandemic.
One study evaluating blood donations found antibodies on the West coast as early as Dec. 13, 2019, and in blood donated on the East Coast by early January 2020 (Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785). Both preceded the first documented COVID-19 infection in the United States, which has been widely reported as occurring on Jan. 19, 2020, in a traveler returning from China.
The other study, utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) analytics, demonstrated a spike in visits or hospitalizations for cough, a trend that persisted from Dec. 22, 2019, onward, exceeding norms for seasonal flu ( J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562). This spike was interpreted as evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was already underway before the first case was established.
While the ongoing serologic testing of blood donations for viral antibodies “will advance understanding of the epidemiology” for SARS-CoV-2 and “inform allocation of resources and public health prevention interventions to mitigate morbidity and mortality,” it might also be a strategy for disease surveillance in the next pandemic, according to a team led by investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Blood donation surveillance is not now used routinely to monitor for population-based health threats, but it is not a new idea, according to the lead author of the study, Sridhar V. Basavaraju, MD, of Emory University and director of the CDC’s Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Atlanta, and his coinvestigators. Most recently, blood donation surveillance was used in the United States to track the penetration of the Zika virus.
For early detection of respiratory infections, blood donations might have unique advantages over alternatives, such as surveillance of respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients. Not least, blood donation surveillance captures individuals who are not seeking medical care, according to the investigators.
EMR surveillance might also have unique advantages for population-based monitoring of health threats. For one, aggregate data from large EMR systems have the potential to reveal symptom patterns before they become apparent at level of clinical care, according to a team of collaborating investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington, Seattle.
Emphasizing an urgent need for “agile healthcare analytics” to enable “disease surveillance in real time,” the first author of the EMR study, Joann G. Elmore, MD, professor in the department of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed the hope that the approach will “lead to better preparation and the ability to quickly provide warnings and track the next pandemic.”
In the blood donation surveillance study, the goal was simply to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies could be found in blood donations before the first case was identified. Of the 7,389 archived blood samples tested between Dec. 13, 2019, and Jan. 17, 2020, 106 (1.4%) were reactive.
These were not true positives, acknowledged the investigators. True positives would require reactive antibodies in the context of a positive molecular diagnostic test or paired acute convalescent sera with rising titers. The investigators also cautioned that false positives could not be completely ruled out, particularly in light of cross-reactivity that has been reported with other human coronaviruses.
Nevertheless, the monitoring of blood donations offers substantial promise for “understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from early introduction,” and the CDC is now collaborating on ongoing surveillance with the goal of contributing information that could be applied “to mitigate morbidity and mortality.”
Lessons learned from this pandemic are potentially relevant to the next.
The EMR study simply looked at whether the word “cough” was included more often in the notes from visits or hospitalizations between December 2019 and February 2020 relative to the preceding 5 years. The investigators drew on data from three hospitals and more than 180 clinics.
From Dec. 22, 2019, onward, cough was noted above the 95% prediction interval for all 10 weeks of the study. The excess was seen in the outpatient setting and among hospitalized patients. There was also significant excess in the number of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure during the study period.
“Our approach to analyzing electronic records could be helpful in the future as we included consideration of data from the outpatient clinics in addition to the emergency departments and inpatient settings,” Dr. Elmore reported.
Surveillance of influenza and influenza-like infections has been undertaken in the United States for more than 20 years, but Dr. Elmore contends that EMR data, particularly data from outpatient clinics are “usually a harbinger of what is to come” for emergency department visits and, ultimately, hospitalizations. She thinks that this is a resource not yet fully exploited.
“There are always opportunities to better harness EMR data,” Dr. Elmore said.
These are intriguing studies and “useful” for reconsidering when SARS-CoV-2 was introduced in the United States, according to Janet G. Basemen, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and the associate dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle. However, she noted that the task of translating data like these into actionable public health strategies has proven difficult in the past.
Symptom-based surveillance systems “have mostly served as situational awareness rather than early detection tools,” Dr. Baseman said. The problem is timely interpretation of a given signal.
Not that she doubts such tools “would be an incredible resource for humanity” if the current limitations can be resolved or that technological advances will lead to better methods of detecting and monitoring pandemics “at some point.” Rather, “we’re just not there yet,” she said.
SOURCE: Basavaraju SV et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785); Elmore JG et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562).
Two recently published studies indicate that COVID-19 infections were already circulating in the United States in December 2019. The question is whether these methodologies that could be applied to track the next pandemic.
One study evaluating blood donations found antibodies on the West coast as early as Dec. 13, 2019, and in blood donated on the East Coast by early January 2020 (Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785). Both preceded the first documented COVID-19 infection in the United States, which has been widely reported as occurring on Jan. 19, 2020, in a traveler returning from China.
The other study, utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) analytics, demonstrated a spike in visits or hospitalizations for cough, a trend that persisted from Dec. 22, 2019, onward, exceeding norms for seasonal flu ( J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562). This spike was interpreted as evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was already underway before the first case was established.
While the ongoing serologic testing of blood donations for viral antibodies “will advance understanding of the epidemiology” for SARS-CoV-2 and “inform allocation of resources and public health prevention interventions to mitigate morbidity and mortality,” it might also be a strategy for disease surveillance in the next pandemic, according to a team led by investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Blood donation surveillance is not now used routinely to monitor for population-based health threats, but it is not a new idea, according to the lead author of the study, Sridhar V. Basavaraju, MD, of Emory University and director of the CDC’s Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Atlanta, and his coinvestigators. Most recently, blood donation surveillance was used in the United States to track the penetration of the Zika virus.
For early detection of respiratory infections, blood donations might have unique advantages over alternatives, such as surveillance of respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients. Not least, blood donation surveillance captures individuals who are not seeking medical care, according to the investigators.
EMR surveillance might also have unique advantages for population-based monitoring of health threats. For one, aggregate data from large EMR systems have the potential to reveal symptom patterns before they become apparent at level of clinical care, according to a team of collaborating investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington, Seattle.
Emphasizing an urgent need for “agile healthcare analytics” to enable “disease surveillance in real time,” the first author of the EMR study, Joann G. Elmore, MD, professor in the department of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed the hope that the approach will “lead to better preparation and the ability to quickly provide warnings and track the next pandemic.”
In the blood donation surveillance study, the goal was simply to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies could be found in blood donations before the first case was identified. Of the 7,389 archived blood samples tested between Dec. 13, 2019, and Jan. 17, 2020, 106 (1.4%) were reactive.
These were not true positives, acknowledged the investigators. True positives would require reactive antibodies in the context of a positive molecular diagnostic test or paired acute convalescent sera with rising titers. The investigators also cautioned that false positives could not be completely ruled out, particularly in light of cross-reactivity that has been reported with other human coronaviruses.
Nevertheless, the monitoring of blood donations offers substantial promise for “understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from early introduction,” and the CDC is now collaborating on ongoing surveillance with the goal of contributing information that could be applied “to mitigate morbidity and mortality.”
Lessons learned from this pandemic are potentially relevant to the next.
The EMR study simply looked at whether the word “cough” was included more often in the notes from visits or hospitalizations between December 2019 and February 2020 relative to the preceding 5 years. The investigators drew on data from three hospitals and more than 180 clinics.
From Dec. 22, 2019, onward, cough was noted above the 95% prediction interval for all 10 weeks of the study. The excess was seen in the outpatient setting and among hospitalized patients. There was also significant excess in the number of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure during the study period.
“Our approach to analyzing electronic records could be helpful in the future as we included consideration of data from the outpatient clinics in addition to the emergency departments and inpatient settings,” Dr. Elmore reported.
Surveillance of influenza and influenza-like infections has been undertaken in the United States for more than 20 years, but Dr. Elmore contends that EMR data, particularly data from outpatient clinics are “usually a harbinger of what is to come” for emergency department visits and, ultimately, hospitalizations. She thinks that this is a resource not yet fully exploited.
“There are always opportunities to better harness EMR data,” Dr. Elmore said.
These are intriguing studies and “useful” for reconsidering when SARS-CoV-2 was introduced in the United States, according to Janet G. Basemen, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and the associate dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle. However, she noted that the task of translating data like these into actionable public health strategies has proven difficult in the past.
Symptom-based surveillance systems “have mostly served as situational awareness rather than early detection tools,” Dr. Baseman said. The problem is timely interpretation of a given signal.
Not that she doubts such tools “would be an incredible resource for humanity” if the current limitations can be resolved or that technological advances will lead to better methods of detecting and monitoring pandemics “at some point.” Rather, “we’re just not there yet,” she said.
SOURCE: Basavaraju SV et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785); Elmore JG et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562).
Two recently published studies indicate that COVID-19 infections were already circulating in the United States in December 2019. The question is whether these methodologies that could be applied to track the next pandemic.
One study evaluating blood donations found antibodies on the West coast as early as Dec. 13, 2019, and in blood donated on the East Coast by early January 2020 (Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785). Both preceded the first documented COVID-19 infection in the United States, which has been widely reported as occurring on Jan. 19, 2020, in a traveler returning from China.
The other study, utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) analytics, demonstrated a spike in visits or hospitalizations for cough, a trend that persisted from Dec. 22, 2019, onward, exceeding norms for seasonal flu ( J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562). This spike was interpreted as evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was already underway before the first case was established.
While the ongoing serologic testing of blood donations for viral antibodies “will advance understanding of the epidemiology” for SARS-CoV-2 and “inform allocation of resources and public health prevention interventions to mitigate morbidity and mortality,” it might also be a strategy for disease surveillance in the next pandemic, according to a team led by investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Blood donation surveillance is not now used routinely to monitor for population-based health threats, but it is not a new idea, according to the lead author of the study, Sridhar V. Basavaraju, MD, of Emory University and director of the CDC’s Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Atlanta, and his coinvestigators. Most recently, blood donation surveillance was used in the United States to track the penetration of the Zika virus.
For early detection of respiratory infections, blood donations might have unique advantages over alternatives, such as surveillance of respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients. Not least, blood donation surveillance captures individuals who are not seeking medical care, according to the investigators.
EMR surveillance might also have unique advantages for population-based monitoring of health threats. For one, aggregate data from large EMR systems have the potential to reveal symptom patterns before they become apparent at level of clinical care, according to a team of collaborating investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington, Seattle.
Emphasizing an urgent need for “agile healthcare analytics” to enable “disease surveillance in real time,” the first author of the EMR study, Joann G. Elmore, MD, professor in the department of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed the hope that the approach will “lead to better preparation and the ability to quickly provide warnings and track the next pandemic.”
In the blood donation surveillance study, the goal was simply to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies could be found in blood donations before the first case was identified. Of the 7,389 archived blood samples tested between Dec. 13, 2019, and Jan. 17, 2020, 106 (1.4%) were reactive.
These were not true positives, acknowledged the investigators. True positives would require reactive antibodies in the context of a positive molecular diagnostic test or paired acute convalescent sera with rising titers. The investigators also cautioned that false positives could not be completely ruled out, particularly in light of cross-reactivity that has been reported with other human coronaviruses.
Nevertheless, the monitoring of blood donations offers substantial promise for “understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from early introduction,” and the CDC is now collaborating on ongoing surveillance with the goal of contributing information that could be applied “to mitigate morbidity and mortality.”
Lessons learned from this pandemic are potentially relevant to the next.
The EMR study simply looked at whether the word “cough” was included more often in the notes from visits or hospitalizations between December 2019 and February 2020 relative to the preceding 5 years. The investigators drew on data from three hospitals and more than 180 clinics.
From Dec. 22, 2019, onward, cough was noted above the 95% prediction interval for all 10 weeks of the study. The excess was seen in the outpatient setting and among hospitalized patients. There was also significant excess in the number of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure during the study period.
“Our approach to analyzing electronic records could be helpful in the future as we included consideration of data from the outpatient clinics in addition to the emergency departments and inpatient settings,” Dr. Elmore reported.
Surveillance of influenza and influenza-like infections has been undertaken in the United States for more than 20 years, but Dr. Elmore contends that EMR data, particularly data from outpatient clinics are “usually a harbinger of what is to come” for emergency department visits and, ultimately, hospitalizations. She thinks that this is a resource not yet fully exploited.
“There are always opportunities to better harness EMR data,” Dr. Elmore said.
These are intriguing studies and “useful” for reconsidering when SARS-CoV-2 was introduced in the United States, according to Janet G. Basemen, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and the associate dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle. However, she noted that the task of translating data like these into actionable public health strategies has proven difficult in the past.
Symptom-based surveillance systems “have mostly served as situational awareness rather than early detection tools,” Dr. Baseman said. The problem is timely interpretation of a given signal.
Not that she doubts such tools “would be an incredible resource for humanity” if the current limitations can be resolved or that technological advances will lead to better methods of detecting and monitoring pandemics “at some point.” Rather, “we’re just not there yet,” she said.
SOURCE: Basavaraju SV et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785); Elmore JG et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562).
Moving from subtypes to phenotypes is simplifying management of rosacea
When a new phenotype approach to the diagnosis of rosacea was proposed 2 years ago, this simpler and more accurate method was accompanied by several corollary advantages, including a more rational approach to treatment and better methods of measuring treatment efficacy, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
“By looking at rosacea in a more simple way – but a more accurate way – we are able to track what happens [to key features] over time,” explained Jerry Tan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.
With the previous method of subtyping, many rosacea patients failed to fit neatly into any of the four categories, producing confusion and diverting attention from troublesome symptoms.
“Rosacea patients often present with a range of features that span multiple subtypes or progress between them,” Dr. Tan explained. The risk is not just a delay in diagnosis but a failure to focus on symptoms patients find most bothersome.
The previous diagnostic criteria for rosacea, published in 2002, identified primary and secondary symptoms within its four subtypes. The new diagnostic criteria, endorsed by the National Rosacea Society and published in 2018, rely on phenotypes defined by diagnostic, major, and minor symptoms. Rather than the four previous subtypes, which were erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular, the phenotypes facilitate diagnosis in patients with mixed features.
By replacing “the old thought process of subtyping” with a newer focus on phenotypes, the updated criteria were “aimed toward accuracy, simplicity and practicality,” Dr. Tan said.
Moreover, without squeezing patients into subgroups where they do not neatly fit, the new criteria draw attention to the specific symptoms that bring patients to the clinician.
The phenotype approach to treatment strategies was reflected in a systematic review of treatments based on phenotypes that was published in 2019, not long after the new classification system became available. In this review, coauthored by Dr. Tan, the GRADE certainty-of-evidence approach was employed to identify effective therapies, matching specific symptoms with specific therapies such as low-dose isotretinoin for papules or omega-3 fatty acids for dry eyes.
Based on a patient-centric approach that emphasizes control of key symptoms, Dr. Tan also described a method of documenting the severity of major and minor symptoms at each visit. With this method, called a rosacea patient tracker, patients and physicians can determine whether therapies are effective against the signs and symptoms of disease that they find most burdensome, according to Dr. Tan, who was the first author of an article he cited as a reference to this phenotype-based methodology.
Overall, the phenotype approach to rosacea “rationalizes treatment,” he said.
Specifically, the heterogeneity of symptoms in rosacea is mirrored in the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiology. According to Dr. Tan, the upregulation of cytokines for inflammation, of angiogenic pathways for vascular symptoms, and of matrix metalloproteinases for tissue remodeling are all implicated in rosacea but drive different types of symptoms. While appropriate skin care and efforts to identify and minimize symptom triggers is appropriate for all patients, phenotypes provide a guide to the most appropriate therapies.
He said he hopes that the focus on phenotypes will draw attention to differences in these pathophysiological mechanisms. According to Dr. Tan, evaluating rosacea from the perspective of phenotypes has represented an important paradigm shift that extends beyond diagnosis.
“The move to the phenotype approach is hopefully simpler, more accurate, and more relevant,” Dr. Tan said.
This same approach has been advocated by others, including Esther J. van Zurren, MD, professor of dermatology at Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, the lead author of the 2018 systematic review article discussed by Dr. Tan. In this review article on the phenotype approach, specific strategies were recommended for specific symptoms on the basis of grading by an international group of experts that included Dr. Tan, a coauthor.
“These strategies should be directed toward achieving improvements in general well-being by targeting those aspects most bothersome to the patient,” the article advises. Like Dr. Tan, she considers this phenotype-based approach to diagnosis and treatment to be a meaningful clinical advance over the guidelines published in 2002.
“Management strategies for people with rosacea should include phenotype-based treatments,” she agreed, adding that specific choices should be made on the basis of these phenotypes “instead of the previous subtype classification.”
The meeting was jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
When a new phenotype approach to the diagnosis of rosacea was proposed 2 years ago, this simpler and more accurate method was accompanied by several corollary advantages, including a more rational approach to treatment and better methods of measuring treatment efficacy, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
“By looking at rosacea in a more simple way – but a more accurate way – we are able to track what happens [to key features] over time,” explained Jerry Tan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.
With the previous method of subtyping, many rosacea patients failed to fit neatly into any of the four categories, producing confusion and diverting attention from troublesome symptoms.
“Rosacea patients often present with a range of features that span multiple subtypes or progress between them,” Dr. Tan explained. The risk is not just a delay in diagnosis but a failure to focus on symptoms patients find most bothersome.
The previous diagnostic criteria for rosacea, published in 2002, identified primary and secondary symptoms within its four subtypes. The new diagnostic criteria, endorsed by the National Rosacea Society and published in 2018, rely on phenotypes defined by diagnostic, major, and minor symptoms. Rather than the four previous subtypes, which were erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular, the phenotypes facilitate diagnosis in patients with mixed features.
By replacing “the old thought process of subtyping” with a newer focus on phenotypes, the updated criteria were “aimed toward accuracy, simplicity and practicality,” Dr. Tan said.
Moreover, without squeezing patients into subgroups where they do not neatly fit, the new criteria draw attention to the specific symptoms that bring patients to the clinician.
The phenotype approach to treatment strategies was reflected in a systematic review of treatments based on phenotypes that was published in 2019, not long after the new classification system became available. In this review, coauthored by Dr. Tan, the GRADE certainty-of-evidence approach was employed to identify effective therapies, matching specific symptoms with specific therapies such as low-dose isotretinoin for papules or omega-3 fatty acids for dry eyes.
Based on a patient-centric approach that emphasizes control of key symptoms, Dr. Tan also described a method of documenting the severity of major and minor symptoms at each visit. With this method, called a rosacea patient tracker, patients and physicians can determine whether therapies are effective against the signs and symptoms of disease that they find most burdensome, according to Dr. Tan, who was the first author of an article he cited as a reference to this phenotype-based methodology.
Overall, the phenotype approach to rosacea “rationalizes treatment,” he said.
Specifically, the heterogeneity of symptoms in rosacea is mirrored in the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiology. According to Dr. Tan, the upregulation of cytokines for inflammation, of angiogenic pathways for vascular symptoms, and of matrix metalloproteinases for tissue remodeling are all implicated in rosacea but drive different types of symptoms. While appropriate skin care and efforts to identify and minimize symptom triggers is appropriate for all patients, phenotypes provide a guide to the most appropriate therapies.
He said he hopes that the focus on phenotypes will draw attention to differences in these pathophysiological mechanisms. According to Dr. Tan, evaluating rosacea from the perspective of phenotypes has represented an important paradigm shift that extends beyond diagnosis.
“The move to the phenotype approach is hopefully simpler, more accurate, and more relevant,” Dr. Tan said.
This same approach has been advocated by others, including Esther J. van Zurren, MD, professor of dermatology at Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, the lead author of the 2018 systematic review article discussed by Dr. Tan. In this review article on the phenotype approach, specific strategies were recommended for specific symptoms on the basis of grading by an international group of experts that included Dr. Tan, a coauthor.
“These strategies should be directed toward achieving improvements in general well-being by targeting those aspects most bothersome to the patient,” the article advises. Like Dr. Tan, she considers this phenotype-based approach to diagnosis and treatment to be a meaningful clinical advance over the guidelines published in 2002.
“Management strategies for people with rosacea should include phenotype-based treatments,” she agreed, adding that specific choices should be made on the basis of these phenotypes “instead of the previous subtype classification.”
The meeting was jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
When a new phenotype approach to the diagnosis of rosacea was proposed 2 years ago, this simpler and more accurate method was accompanied by several corollary advantages, including a more rational approach to treatment and better methods of measuring treatment efficacy, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.
“By looking at rosacea in a more simple way – but a more accurate way – we are able to track what happens [to key features] over time,” explained Jerry Tan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.
With the previous method of subtyping, many rosacea patients failed to fit neatly into any of the four categories, producing confusion and diverting attention from troublesome symptoms.
“Rosacea patients often present with a range of features that span multiple subtypes or progress between them,” Dr. Tan explained. The risk is not just a delay in diagnosis but a failure to focus on symptoms patients find most bothersome.
The previous diagnostic criteria for rosacea, published in 2002, identified primary and secondary symptoms within its four subtypes. The new diagnostic criteria, endorsed by the National Rosacea Society and published in 2018, rely on phenotypes defined by diagnostic, major, and minor symptoms. Rather than the four previous subtypes, which were erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular, the phenotypes facilitate diagnosis in patients with mixed features.
By replacing “the old thought process of subtyping” with a newer focus on phenotypes, the updated criteria were “aimed toward accuracy, simplicity and practicality,” Dr. Tan said.
Moreover, without squeezing patients into subgroups where they do not neatly fit, the new criteria draw attention to the specific symptoms that bring patients to the clinician.
The phenotype approach to treatment strategies was reflected in a systematic review of treatments based on phenotypes that was published in 2019, not long after the new classification system became available. In this review, coauthored by Dr. Tan, the GRADE certainty-of-evidence approach was employed to identify effective therapies, matching specific symptoms with specific therapies such as low-dose isotretinoin for papules or omega-3 fatty acids for dry eyes.
Based on a patient-centric approach that emphasizes control of key symptoms, Dr. Tan also described a method of documenting the severity of major and minor symptoms at each visit. With this method, called a rosacea patient tracker, patients and physicians can determine whether therapies are effective against the signs and symptoms of disease that they find most burdensome, according to Dr. Tan, who was the first author of an article he cited as a reference to this phenotype-based methodology.
Overall, the phenotype approach to rosacea “rationalizes treatment,” he said.
Specifically, the heterogeneity of symptoms in rosacea is mirrored in the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiology. According to Dr. Tan, the upregulation of cytokines for inflammation, of angiogenic pathways for vascular symptoms, and of matrix metalloproteinases for tissue remodeling are all implicated in rosacea but drive different types of symptoms. While appropriate skin care and efforts to identify and minimize symptom triggers is appropriate for all patients, phenotypes provide a guide to the most appropriate therapies.
He said he hopes that the focus on phenotypes will draw attention to differences in these pathophysiological mechanisms. According to Dr. Tan, evaluating rosacea from the perspective of phenotypes has represented an important paradigm shift that extends beyond diagnosis.
“The move to the phenotype approach is hopefully simpler, more accurate, and more relevant,” Dr. Tan said.
This same approach has been advocated by others, including Esther J. van Zurren, MD, professor of dermatology at Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, the lead author of the 2018 systematic review article discussed by Dr. Tan. In this review article on the phenotype approach, specific strategies were recommended for specific symptoms on the basis of grading by an international group of experts that included Dr. Tan, a coauthor.
“These strategies should be directed toward achieving improvements in general well-being by targeting those aspects most bothersome to the patient,” the article advises. Like Dr. Tan, she considers this phenotype-based approach to diagnosis and treatment to be a meaningful clinical advance over the guidelines published in 2002.
“Management strategies for people with rosacea should include phenotype-based treatments,” she agreed, adding that specific choices should be made on the basis of these phenotypes “instead of the previous subtype classification.”
The meeting was jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
FROM COASTAL DERM
Survey finds Black, Hispanic patients may prefer race-concordant dermatologists, highlighting opportunities for changes in education and practice
, according to a patient survey.
In the survey, 42% of self-identified Black patients and 44% of self-identified Hispanic patients assigned some level of importance to the race or ethnicity of their dermatologist. Of patients self-identified as White, the figure was 2%, which was significantly lower (P less than .001).
Responses to the survey indicated that there is concern among non-White patients that White physicians are not fully sensitive to the clinical issues presented by their skin type. For example, 22% of Hispanic patients and 21% of Black patients agreed that a race-concordant physician would be better trained to treat their skin.
The results of the survey were recently published in a Research Letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
When patients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that non-White patients receive the same quality of care as White patients, about a third disagreed, “but about half said they were unsure, which I interpret basically as a negative answer,” reported the lead author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.
“These data are a call to action. Certainly, we need to diversify our workforce to mirror the overall population, but we can also do more to improve training for dermatologic diseases across skin types,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
“Ensuring all skin types are represented in all dermatologic education, from resident book clubs to the national stage is but one step to making dermatology more inclusive and prepared to care for all patients,” he added.
Ninety-two patients receiving dermatology care at Dr. Friedman’s institution completed the survey. Fifty identified themselves as White, nine as Hispanic, and 33 as Black. Allowing patients to self-identify race was an important feature of this survey, according to Dr. Friedman.
“Something I really struggle with is terminology. Are race and ethnicity the appropriate terms when discussing different skin types and tones? It is so easy to misuse even validated tools. The Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, requires patients to relay how easily they burn, but reveals nothing about how patients refer to their skin tone,” Dr. Friedman explained. “We need to reset how we characterize and categorize skin types.”
Among those who assigned at least some importance to having a dermatologist of the same race or ethnicity, the most common reason was that such physicians “are better able to listen and relate to me.” Thirty percent of Black patients and 22% of Hispanic patients agreed with this statement. The perception that such physicians are better trained to treat non-White skin was the next most common reason.
The results of the survey emphasize the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive training in managing all skin types and that physicians receive rigorous implicit bias and cultural sensitivity training in order to win patient trust, according to Dr. Friedman. He suggested that the perception that White physicians might not provide optimal care to non-White patients by study participants “has some validity. Structural racism in medicine is well-documented, and dermatologists have already begun to combat this on several fronts.”
In fact, the process of conducting and analyzing data from this survey proved to be its own lesson in sociocultural sensitivity, he said.
After a draft completed peer review and was accepted for publication, Dr. Friedman was confronted with numerous criticisms of the language that was used. In particular, one of his former residents, Misty Eleryan, MD, who is now a Mohs Fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, was instrumental in pointing out problems. Ultimately, he withdrew the paper to rephrase the findings.
“It was not until then that I also learned that there is a JAAD Sensitivity Workgroup, which was very helpful in identifying issues we had overlooked,” Dr. Friedman said. For example, he had used the term “minorities” for non-White populations, which is not only inaccurate in many situations but has a pejorative undertone.
“It is important to recognize that the impact is more important than the intention,” said Dr. Friedman, who reported that he learned a lot in this process.
It is the need for this type of augmented sensitivity that the survey underscores, he added. He called for cultural sensitivity to be part of medical training to undo unrecognized bias, and said, “We need to understand how our patients perceive us.”
SOURCE: Friedman A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 16;S0190-9622(20)32620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.032.
, according to a patient survey.
In the survey, 42% of self-identified Black patients and 44% of self-identified Hispanic patients assigned some level of importance to the race or ethnicity of their dermatologist. Of patients self-identified as White, the figure was 2%, which was significantly lower (P less than .001).
Responses to the survey indicated that there is concern among non-White patients that White physicians are not fully sensitive to the clinical issues presented by their skin type. For example, 22% of Hispanic patients and 21% of Black patients agreed that a race-concordant physician would be better trained to treat their skin.
The results of the survey were recently published in a Research Letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
When patients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that non-White patients receive the same quality of care as White patients, about a third disagreed, “but about half said they were unsure, which I interpret basically as a negative answer,” reported the lead author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.
“These data are a call to action. Certainly, we need to diversify our workforce to mirror the overall population, but we can also do more to improve training for dermatologic diseases across skin types,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
“Ensuring all skin types are represented in all dermatologic education, from resident book clubs to the national stage is but one step to making dermatology more inclusive and prepared to care for all patients,” he added.
Ninety-two patients receiving dermatology care at Dr. Friedman’s institution completed the survey. Fifty identified themselves as White, nine as Hispanic, and 33 as Black. Allowing patients to self-identify race was an important feature of this survey, according to Dr. Friedman.
“Something I really struggle with is terminology. Are race and ethnicity the appropriate terms when discussing different skin types and tones? It is so easy to misuse even validated tools. The Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, requires patients to relay how easily they burn, but reveals nothing about how patients refer to their skin tone,” Dr. Friedman explained. “We need to reset how we characterize and categorize skin types.”
Among those who assigned at least some importance to having a dermatologist of the same race or ethnicity, the most common reason was that such physicians “are better able to listen and relate to me.” Thirty percent of Black patients and 22% of Hispanic patients agreed with this statement. The perception that such physicians are better trained to treat non-White skin was the next most common reason.
The results of the survey emphasize the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive training in managing all skin types and that physicians receive rigorous implicit bias and cultural sensitivity training in order to win patient trust, according to Dr. Friedman. He suggested that the perception that White physicians might not provide optimal care to non-White patients by study participants “has some validity. Structural racism in medicine is well-documented, and dermatologists have already begun to combat this on several fronts.”
In fact, the process of conducting and analyzing data from this survey proved to be its own lesson in sociocultural sensitivity, he said.
After a draft completed peer review and was accepted for publication, Dr. Friedman was confronted with numerous criticisms of the language that was used. In particular, one of his former residents, Misty Eleryan, MD, who is now a Mohs Fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, was instrumental in pointing out problems. Ultimately, he withdrew the paper to rephrase the findings.
“It was not until then that I also learned that there is a JAAD Sensitivity Workgroup, which was very helpful in identifying issues we had overlooked,” Dr. Friedman said. For example, he had used the term “minorities” for non-White populations, which is not only inaccurate in many situations but has a pejorative undertone.
“It is important to recognize that the impact is more important than the intention,” said Dr. Friedman, who reported that he learned a lot in this process.
It is the need for this type of augmented sensitivity that the survey underscores, he added. He called for cultural sensitivity to be part of medical training to undo unrecognized bias, and said, “We need to understand how our patients perceive us.”
SOURCE: Friedman A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 16;S0190-9622(20)32620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.032.
, according to a patient survey.
In the survey, 42% of self-identified Black patients and 44% of self-identified Hispanic patients assigned some level of importance to the race or ethnicity of their dermatologist. Of patients self-identified as White, the figure was 2%, which was significantly lower (P less than .001).
Responses to the survey indicated that there is concern among non-White patients that White physicians are not fully sensitive to the clinical issues presented by their skin type. For example, 22% of Hispanic patients and 21% of Black patients agreed that a race-concordant physician would be better trained to treat their skin.
The results of the survey were recently published in a Research Letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
When patients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that non-White patients receive the same quality of care as White patients, about a third disagreed, “but about half said they were unsure, which I interpret basically as a negative answer,” reported the lead author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.
“These data are a call to action. Certainly, we need to diversify our workforce to mirror the overall population, but we can also do more to improve training for dermatologic diseases across skin types,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
“Ensuring all skin types are represented in all dermatologic education, from resident book clubs to the national stage is but one step to making dermatology more inclusive and prepared to care for all patients,” he added.
Ninety-two patients receiving dermatology care at Dr. Friedman’s institution completed the survey. Fifty identified themselves as White, nine as Hispanic, and 33 as Black. Allowing patients to self-identify race was an important feature of this survey, according to Dr. Friedman.
“Something I really struggle with is terminology. Are race and ethnicity the appropriate terms when discussing different skin types and tones? It is so easy to misuse even validated tools. The Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, requires patients to relay how easily they burn, but reveals nothing about how patients refer to their skin tone,” Dr. Friedman explained. “We need to reset how we characterize and categorize skin types.”
Among those who assigned at least some importance to having a dermatologist of the same race or ethnicity, the most common reason was that such physicians “are better able to listen and relate to me.” Thirty percent of Black patients and 22% of Hispanic patients agreed with this statement. The perception that such physicians are better trained to treat non-White skin was the next most common reason.
The results of the survey emphasize the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive training in managing all skin types and that physicians receive rigorous implicit bias and cultural sensitivity training in order to win patient trust, according to Dr. Friedman. He suggested that the perception that White physicians might not provide optimal care to non-White patients by study participants “has some validity. Structural racism in medicine is well-documented, and dermatologists have already begun to combat this on several fronts.”
In fact, the process of conducting and analyzing data from this survey proved to be its own lesson in sociocultural sensitivity, he said.
After a draft completed peer review and was accepted for publication, Dr. Friedman was confronted with numerous criticisms of the language that was used. In particular, one of his former residents, Misty Eleryan, MD, who is now a Mohs Fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, was instrumental in pointing out problems. Ultimately, he withdrew the paper to rephrase the findings.
“It was not until then that I also learned that there is a JAAD Sensitivity Workgroup, which was very helpful in identifying issues we had overlooked,” Dr. Friedman said. For example, he had used the term “minorities” for non-White populations, which is not only inaccurate in many situations but has a pejorative undertone.
“It is important to recognize that the impact is more important than the intention,” said Dr. Friedman, who reported that he learned a lot in this process.
It is the need for this type of augmented sensitivity that the survey underscores, he added. He called for cultural sensitivity to be part of medical training to undo unrecognized bias, and said, “We need to understand how our patients perceive us.”
SOURCE: Friedman A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 16;S0190-9622(20)32620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.032.
Stenotic lesion outcomes better if fractional flow reserve guides PCI
Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.
“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”
The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.
“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.
In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.
The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.
Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.
In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.
In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.
It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.
“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.
Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.
“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.
Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.
“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”
The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.
“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.
In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.
The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.
Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.
In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.
In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.
It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.
“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.
Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.
“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.
Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.
“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”
The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.
“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.
In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.
The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.
Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.
In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.
In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.
It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.
“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.
Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.
“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.
FROM AHA 2020