User login
At 52 weeks, complete hair regrowth rates still climbing on deuruxolitinib
BERLIN – at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
With response curves still climbing at follow-up to date, the results are “truly, truly remarkable,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Deuruxolitinib is a JAK inhibitor that has specificity for the 1 and 2 subtypes. At 24 weeks in the phase 3 THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2 trials, presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting earlier this year, about 40% of those on the 12-mg twice-daily dose and 32% of those on the 8-mg twice-daily dose achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤ 20%, signifying 80% or greater hair regrowth at 24 weeks. The placebo response was 0%.
By 52 weeks, the proportion had climbed to 62% among those on continuous deuruxolitinib whether maintained on the 8-mg or 12-mg twice daily doses. Among patients on placebo, 58.4% reached this endpoint after being switched at 24 weeks to the 12-mg twice daily dose. Of the patients on placebo switched to 8 mg twice daily, the 52-week response was 45.2%, according to Dr. King.
There were 741 patients available at 52 weeks for this on-going analysis. The mean SALT scores at entry exceeded 80%, meaning complete or near complete hair loss. The substantial proportion of patients who met the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20 at the end of the blinded period was encouraging, but Dr. King said that the 52-week results are important, not only showing the response was sustained, but that greater regrowth occurs over time.
“Alopecia takes time to treat,” said Dr. King, summarizing the lesson from these data. Moreover, he added that the long-term data are likely to under represent the absolute benefit even if no further growth is achieved with even longer follow-up. One reason is that missing long-term data were accounted for with a last-observation-carried-forward approach.
In other words, “this is the floor when considering response at 52 weeks,” Dr. King said. “In the real world, where adjunctive measures such as intralesional Kenalog [triamcinolone acetonide] or topical treatments are added, we are likely to do even better,” he added.
Adverse events remained low
Treatment-emergent adverse events remained low with “nothing particularly surprising,” Dr. King said. The rate of serious adverse events over 52 weeks was less than 2% on either dose of deuruxolitinib. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was 0.7% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 1.1% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm.
Most approved oral JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning based on a trial conducted with the relatively nonspecific tofacitinib. The trial enrolled older patients with rheumatoid arthritis at risk for thrombotic events, raising questions about its relevance to selective JAK inhibitors employed for other indications. There was only one thrombosis observed in the 52-week alopecia areata follow-up in a patient on deuruxolitinib. Dr. King noted that this patient, who was obese and was on the higher of the two doses, had multiple comorbidities, including systemic lupus erythematosus.
There were no major adverse cardiac events reported in long-term follow-up or cases of tuberculosis. The rate of opportunistic infections was 0.1% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 0.2% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm. Serious infections were observed in 0.6% and 0.4% of these two arms, respectively. There were four malignancies (0.5%) in each of the two study arms.
Of the side effects likely to be related to deuruxolitinib, acne was observed in about 10% of patients on either dose. The mechanism is unclear, but Dr. King reported this has been commonly observed with other JAK inhibitors.
Asked his opinion about the optimal starting dose of deuruxolitinib, Dr. King said, “in my mind, the efficacy of 8 mg is so impressive that I would not struggle at all in starting there,” noting that the higher dose could be considered with a slow or inadequate response.
Two JAK inhibitors are already approved
If approved for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib will be the third JAK inhibitor available for this indication, following the recent approvals of baricitinib and ritlecitinib.
Calling JAK inhibitors “a major advance in the treatment of alopecia areata, particularly for those patients with severe, refractory disease,” Lynne Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic, Boston Medical Center, said that the proportion of patients with SALT scores ≤ 20 at 52-weeks is “huge.”
She is generally comfortable with the safety of the JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata.
“I believe that, in general, these medications are well tolerated in the alopecia areata population, particularly in otherwise healthy, young patients,” she said, indicating the benefit-to-risk ratio is particularly acceptable when disease is severe.
“This disease has tremendous emotional and functional implications, and many patients with severe or recurrent disease are willing to chance the side effects to live with a full head of hair,” she said. She added that well-informed patients can “make their own, individual assessment.”
Dr. King has financial relationships with approximately 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which makes deuruxolitinib and provided funding for this study. Dr. Goldberg reports no financial conflicts relevant to this topic.
BERLIN – at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
With response curves still climbing at follow-up to date, the results are “truly, truly remarkable,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Deuruxolitinib is a JAK inhibitor that has specificity for the 1 and 2 subtypes. At 24 weeks in the phase 3 THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2 trials, presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting earlier this year, about 40% of those on the 12-mg twice-daily dose and 32% of those on the 8-mg twice-daily dose achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤ 20%, signifying 80% or greater hair regrowth at 24 weeks. The placebo response was 0%.
By 52 weeks, the proportion had climbed to 62% among those on continuous deuruxolitinib whether maintained on the 8-mg or 12-mg twice daily doses. Among patients on placebo, 58.4% reached this endpoint after being switched at 24 weeks to the 12-mg twice daily dose. Of the patients on placebo switched to 8 mg twice daily, the 52-week response was 45.2%, according to Dr. King.
There were 741 patients available at 52 weeks for this on-going analysis. The mean SALT scores at entry exceeded 80%, meaning complete or near complete hair loss. The substantial proportion of patients who met the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20 at the end of the blinded period was encouraging, but Dr. King said that the 52-week results are important, not only showing the response was sustained, but that greater regrowth occurs over time.
“Alopecia takes time to treat,” said Dr. King, summarizing the lesson from these data. Moreover, he added that the long-term data are likely to under represent the absolute benefit even if no further growth is achieved with even longer follow-up. One reason is that missing long-term data were accounted for with a last-observation-carried-forward approach.
In other words, “this is the floor when considering response at 52 weeks,” Dr. King said. “In the real world, where adjunctive measures such as intralesional Kenalog [triamcinolone acetonide] or topical treatments are added, we are likely to do even better,” he added.
Adverse events remained low
Treatment-emergent adverse events remained low with “nothing particularly surprising,” Dr. King said. The rate of serious adverse events over 52 weeks was less than 2% on either dose of deuruxolitinib. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was 0.7% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 1.1% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm.
Most approved oral JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning based on a trial conducted with the relatively nonspecific tofacitinib. The trial enrolled older patients with rheumatoid arthritis at risk for thrombotic events, raising questions about its relevance to selective JAK inhibitors employed for other indications. There was only one thrombosis observed in the 52-week alopecia areata follow-up in a patient on deuruxolitinib. Dr. King noted that this patient, who was obese and was on the higher of the two doses, had multiple comorbidities, including systemic lupus erythematosus.
There were no major adverse cardiac events reported in long-term follow-up or cases of tuberculosis. The rate of opportunistic infections was 0.1% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 0.2% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm. Serious infections were observed in 0.6% and 0.4% of these two arms, respectively. There were four malignancies (0.5%) in each of the two study arms.
Of the side effects likely to be related to deuruxolitinib, acne was observed in about 10% of patients on either dose. The mechanism is unclear, but Dr. King reported this has been commonly observed with other JAK inhibitors.
Asked his opinion about the optimal starting dose of deuruxolitinib, Dr. King said, “in my mind, the efficacy of 8 mg is so impressive that I would not struggle at all in starting there,” noting that the higher dose could be considered with a slow or inadequate response.
Two JAK inhibitors are already approved
If approved for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib will be the third JAK inhibitor available for this indication, following the recent approvals of baricitinib and ritlecitinib.
Calling JAK inhibitors “a major advance in the treatment of alopecia areata, particularly for those patients with severe, refractory disease,” Lynne Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic, Boston Medical Center, said that the proportion of patients with SALT scores ≤ 20 at 52-weeks is “huge.”
She is generally comfortable with the safety of the JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata.
“I believe that, in general, these medications are well tolerated in the alopecia areata population, particularly in otherwise healthy, young patients,” she said, indicating the benefit-to-risk ratio is particularly acceptable when disease is severe.
“This disease has tremendous emotional and functional implications, and many patients with severe or recurrent disease are willing to chance the side effects to live with a full head of hair,” she said. She added that well-informed patients can “make their own, individual assessment.”
Dr. King has financial relationships with approximately 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which makes deuruxolitinib and provided funding for this study. Dr. Goldberg reports no financial conflicts relevant to this topic.
BERLIN – at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
With response curves still climbing at follow-up to date, the results are “truly, truly remarkable,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Deuruxolitinib is a JAK inhibitor that has specificity for the 1 and 2 subtypes. At 24 weeks in the phase 3 THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2 trials, presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting earlier this year, about 40% of those on the 12-mg twice-daily dose and 32% of those on the 8-mg twice-daily dose achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤ 20%, signifying 80% or greater hair regrowth at 24 weeks. The placebo response was 0%.
By 52 weeks, the proportion had climbed to 62% among those on continuous deuruxolitinib whether maintained on the 8-mg or 12-mg twice daily doses. Among patients on placebo, 58.4% reached this endpoint after being switched at 24 weeks to the 12-mg twice daily dose. Of the patients on placebo switched to 8 mg twice daily, the 52-week response was 45.2%, according to Dr. King.
There were 741 patients available at 52 weeks for this on-going analysis. The mean SALT scores at entry exceeded 80%, meaning complete or near complete hair loss. The substantial proportion of patients who met the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20 at the end of the blinded period was encouraging, but Dr. King said that the 52-week results are important, not only showing the response was sustained, but that greater regrowth occurs over time.
“Alopecia takes time to treat,” said Dr. King, summarizing the lesson from these data. Moreover, he added that the long-term data are likely to under represent the absolute benefit even if no further growth is achieved with even longer follow-up. One reason is that missing long-term data were accounted for with a last-observation-carried-forward approach.
In other words, “this is the floor when considering response at 52 weeks,” Dr. King said. “In the real world, where adjunctive measures such as intralesional Kenalog [triamcinolone acetonide] or topical treatments are added, we are likely to do even better,” he added.
Adverse events remained low
Treatment-emergent adverse events remained low with “nothing particularly surprising,” Dr. King said. The rate of serious adverse events over 52 weeks was less than 2% on either dose of deuruxolitinib. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was 0.7% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 1.1% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm.
Most approved oral JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning based on a trial conducted with the relatively nonspecific tofacitinib. The trial enrolled older patients with rheumatoid arthritis at risk for thrombotic events, raising questions about its relevance to selective JAK inhibitors employed for other indications. There was only one thrombosis observed in the 52-week alopecia areata follow-up in a patient on deuruxolitinib. Dr. King noted that this patient, who was obese and was on the higher of the two doses, had multiple comorbidities, including systemic lupus erythematosus.
There were no major adverse cardiac events reported in long-term follow-up or cases of tuberculosis. The rate of opportunistic infections was 0.1% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 0.2% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm. Serious infections were observed in 0.6% and 0.4% of these two arms, respectively. There were four malignancies (0.5%) in each of the two study arms.
Of the side effects likely to be related to deuruxolitinib, acne was observed in about 10% of patients on either dose. The mechanism is unclear, but Dr. King reported this has been commonly observed with other JAK inhibitors.
Asked his opinion about the optimal starting dose of deuruxolitinib, Dr. King said, “in my mind, the efficacy of 8 mg is so impressive that I would not struggle at all in starting there,” noting that the higher dose could be considered with a slow or inadequate response.
Two JAK inhibitors are already approved
If approved for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib will be the third JAK inhibitor available for this indication, following the recent approvals of baricitinib and ritlecitinib.
Calling JAK inhibitors “a major advance in the treatment of alopecia areata, particularly for those patients with severe, refractory disease,” Lynne Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic, Boston Medical Center, said that the proportion of patients with SALT scores ≤ 20 at 52-weeks is “huge.”
She is generally comfortable with the safety of the JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata.
“I believe that, in general, these medications are well tolerated in the alopecia areata population, particularly in otherwise healthy, young patients,” she said, indicating the benefit-to-risk ratio is particularly acceptable when disease is severe.
“This disease has tremendous emotional and functional implications, and many patients with severe or recurrent disease are willing to chance the side effects to live with a full head of hair,” she said. She added that well-informed patients can “make their own, individual assessment.”
Dr. King has financial relationships with approximately 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which makes deuruxolitinib and provided funding for this study. Dr. Goldberg reports no financial conflicts relevant to this topic.
At THE EADV CONGRESS
Tapinarof effective for AD in patients as young as 2 years
BERLIN – of age, according to results of two pivotal trials presented at the at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
If approved for AD, one advantage of tapinarof cream relative to topical corticosteroids is potential use “without restrictions on duration, extent, or site of application,” reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research, George Washington University, Washington.
Tapinarof cream, 1%, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.
In the two phase 3 trials, ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, which were presented together at the meeting, the primary endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) for AD of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 8 weeks. For this endpoint and all secondary endpoints, the relative advantage of the active cream over the vehicle alone was about the same in both studies.
For example, the vIGA clear or almost clear response was met by 45.4% and 46.4% of those in the experimental arm of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively, but only 13.9% and 18.0% in the control arms (P < .0001 for both).
For the secondary endpoint of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75), signifying 75% clearance of skin lesions, the response rates were 55.8% and 59.1% in the two trials, but only 22.9% and 24.1% in the respective control arms (P < .0001 for both).
The two identically designed trials randomized patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to tapinarof cream or vehicle alone. There were 407 patients ages 2-81 years in ADORING I and 406 in ADORING 2. Patients were instructed to apply the active cream or vehicle once per day.
The safety data for tapinarof in these studies was generally consistent with the experience with this agent in plaque psoriasis. According to Dr. Silverberg, there was a modest increase in reports of headache early in this study, but these were transient. Follicular events were also more common on tapinarof than on its vehicle, but Dr. Silverberg said that the rate of discontinuations for adverse events, although low in both arms, was numerically lower in the active treatment arm in both trials.
“There were reports of contact dermatitis in the psoriasis studies, but we have not seen this in the AD trials,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Itch control evaluated
In a separate presentation of ADORING 1 and 2 results, Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, provided detailed information about itch control, which was evaluated with the Peak Pruritus–Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS).
“The PP-NRS considers a person’s worst itch over the past 24 hours based on an 11-point scale,” explained Dr. Simpson, who said that patients scored itch daily with comparisons made at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Over time, pruritus scores fell in both groups, but reductions were far steeper among those in the active treatment arms.
“In ADORING 1, there were greater reductions in itch as early as day 1,” Dr. Simpson reported. Although the differences in itch were not detected until day 2 in ADORING 2, the differences were already significant and clinically meaningful in both studies by the end of the first week.
By week 8, the mean reductions in PP-NRS scores were 2.6 and 2.4 in the vehicle arms of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively. In the treatment arm, the reduction was 4.1 points in both arms (P < .0001 for both studies).
Forty-eight–week follow-up planned
More than 90% of patients in both studies have rolled over into the open-label extension ADORING 3 trial, with a planned follow-up of 48 weeks, according to Dr. Silverberg, who said that those in the placebo arm have been crossed over to tapinarof.
The response and the safety appear to be similar in adults and children, although Dr. Silverberg said that further analyses of outcomes by age are planned. He noted that there is also an ongoing study of tapinarof in children with plaque psoriasis.
In AD in particular, Dr. Silverberg said there is “an unmet need” for a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. While topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of AD therapy in children as well as adults, he noted the limitations of these drugs, including that they can only be applied for limited periods.
Tapinarof binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which regulates immune function in the skin and is expressed in many skin cell types. By inhibiting AhR, tapinarof blocks cytokine activation and has an antioxidant effect.
Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor and director of pediatric dermatology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, has participated in clinical studies of tapinarof for AD, and said she has been impressed with its efficacy and tolerability in children as well as adults. In the case of children, parents, as well as patients, “valued the rapid onset of disease control, the once-daily application regimen, and the itch control,” she said in an interview after the meeting.
If approved, Dr. Hebert said, “this novel steroid-free medication has the potential to change the management arena for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
The recent introduction of new systemic therapies for AD, such as JAK inhibitors, has increased options for AD control, but “we still need effective and safe topical therapies, especially in children and young adults,” said Sonja Ständer, MD, head of the Interdisciplinary Center for Chronic Pruritus, University of Münster (Germany). Author of a comprehensive review article on AD in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 years ago, Dr. Ständer said results from the phase 3 topical tapinarof trials, as well as the phase 3 topical ruxolitinib trials, which were also presented as late breakers at the 2023 EADV meeting, provide “hope that an alternative to topical steroids will soon be available.”
Based on their safety and rapid control of itch in children with AD, “these will complement our current portfolio of topical therapies very well and have the potential to replace topical steroids early in therapy or to replace them altogether,” she told this news organization.
Dermavant Sciences, manufacturer of tapinarof, anticipates filing for Food and Drug Administration approval for AD in the first quarter of 2024, according to a company statement.
Dr. Silverberg and Dr. Simpson reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavant, which provided funding for the ADORING trials. Dr. Hebert has financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavent and other companies that have or are developing therapies for AD. Dr. Ständer reported financial relationships with Beiersdorf, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
BERLIN – of age, according to results of two pivotal trials presented at the at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
If approved for AD, one advantage of tapinarof cream relative to topical corticosteroids is potential use “without restrictions on duration, extent, or site of application,” reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research, George Washington University, Washington.
Tapinarof cream, 1%, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.
In the two phase 3 trials, ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, which were presented together at the meeting, the primary endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) for AD of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 8 weeks. For this endpoint and all secondary endpoints, the relative advantage of the active cream over the vehicle alone was about the same in both studies.
For example, the vIGA clear or almost clear response was met by 45.4% and 46.4% of those in the experimental arm of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively, but only 13.9% and 18.0% in the control arms (P < .0001 for both).
For the secondary endpoint of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75), signifying 75% clearance of skin lesions, the response rates were 55.8% and 59.1% in the two trials, but only 22.9% and 24.1% in the respective control arms (P < .0001 for both).
The two identically designed trials randomized patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to tapinarof cream or vehicle alone. There were 407 patients ages 2-81 years in ADORING I and 406 in ADORING 2. Patients were instructed to apply the active cream or vehicle once per day.
The safety data for tapinarof in these studies was generally consistent with the experience with this agent in plaque psoriasis. According to Dr. Silverberg, there was a modest increase in reports of headache early in this study, but these were transient. Follicular events were also more common on tapinarof than on its vehicle, but Dr. Silverberg said that the rate of discontinuations for adverse events, although low in both arms, was numerically lower in the active treatment arm in both trials.
“There were reports of contact dermatitis in the psoriasis studies, but we have not seen this in the AD trials,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Itch control evaluated
In a separate presentation of ADORING 1 and 2 results, Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, provided detailed information about itch control, which was evaluated with the Peak Pruritus–Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS).
“The PP-NRS considers a person’s worst itch over the past 24 hours based on an 11-point scale,” explained Dr. Simpson, who said that patients scored itch daily with comparisons made at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Over time, pruritus scores fell in both groups, but reductions were far steeper among those in the active treatment arms.
“In ADORING 1, there were greater reductions in itch as early as day 1,” Dr. Simpson reported. Although the differences in itch were not detected until day 2 in ADORING 2, the differences were already significant and clinically meaningful in both studies by the end of the first week.
By week 8, the mean reductions in PP-NRS scores were 2.6 and 2.4 in the vehicle arms of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively. In the treatment arm, the reduction was 4.1 points in both arms (P < .0001 for both studies).
Forty-eight–week follow-up planned
More than 90% of patients in both studies have rolled over into the open-label extension ADORING 3 trial, with a planned follow-up of 48 weeks, according to Dr. Silverberg, who said that those in the placebo arm have been crossed over to tapinarof.
The response and the safety appear to be similar in adults and children, although Dr. Silverberg said that further analyses of outcomes by age are planned. He noted that there is also an ongoing study of tapinarof in children with plaque psoriasis.
In AD in particular, Dr. Silverberg said there is “an unmet need” for a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. While topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of AD therapy in children as well as adults, he noted the limitations of these drugs, including that they can only be applied for limited periods.
Tapinarof binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which regulates immune function in the skin and is expressed in many skin cell types. By inhibiting AhR, tapinarof blocks cytokine activation and has an antioxidant effect.
Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor and director of pediatric dermatology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, has participated in clinical studies of tapinarof for AD, and said she has been impressed with its efficacy and tolerability in children as well as adults. In the case of children, parents, as well as patients, “valued the rapid onset of disease control, the once-daily application regimen, and the itch control,” she said in an interview after the meeting.
If approved, Dr. Hebert said, “this novel steroid-free medication has the potential to change the management arena for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
The recent introduction of new systemic therapies for AD, such as JAK inhibitors, has increased options for AD control, but “we still need effective and safe topical therapies, especially in children and young adults,” said Sonja Ständer, MD, head of the Interdisciplinary Center for Chronic Pruritus, University of Münster (Germany). Author of a comprehensive review article on AD in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 years ago, Dr. Ständer said results from the phase 3 topical tapinarof trials, as well as the phase 3 topical ruxolitinib trials, which were also presented as late breakers at the 2023 EADV meeting, provide “hope that an alternative to topical steroids will soon be available.”
Based on their safety and rapid control of itch in children with AD, “these will complement our current portfolio of topical therapies very well and have the potential to replace topical steroids early in therapy or to replace them altogether,” she told this news organization.
Dermavant Sciences, manufacturer of tapinarof, anticipates filing for Food and Drug Administration approval for AD in the first quarter of 2024, according to a company statement.
Dr. Silverberg and Dr. Simpson reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavant, which provided funding for the ADORING trials. Dr. Hebert has financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavent and other companies that have or are developing therapies for AD. Dr. Ständer reported financial relationships with Beiersdorf, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
BERLIN – of age, according to results of two pivotal trials presented at the at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
If approved for AD, one advantage of tapinarof cream relative to topical corticosteroids is potential use “without restrictions on duration, extent, or site of application,” reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research, George Washington University, Washington.
Tapinarof cream, 1%, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.
In the two phase 3 trials, ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, which were presented together at the meeting, the primary endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) for AD of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 8 weeks. For this endpoint and all secondary endpoints, the relative advantage of the active cream over the vehicle alone was about the same in both studies.
For example, the vIGA clear or almost clear response was met by 45.4% and 46.4% of those in the experimental arm of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively, but only 13.9% and 18.0% in the control arms (P < .0001 for both).
For the secondary endpoint of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75), signifying 75% clearance of skin lesions, the response rates were 55.8% and 59.1% in the two trials, but only 22.9% and 24.1% in the respective control arms (P < .0001 for both).
The two identically designed trials randomized patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to tapinarof cream or vehicle alone. There were 407 patients ages 2-81 years in ADORING I and 406 in ADORING 2. Patients were instructed to apply the active cream or vehicle once per day.
The safety data for tapinarof in these studies was generally consistent with the experience with this agent in plaque psoriasis. According to Dr. Silverberg, there was a modest increase in reports of headache early in this study, but these were transient. Follicular events were also more common on tapinarof than on its vehicle, but Dr. Silverberg said that the rate of discontinuations for adverse events, although low in both arms, was numerically lower in the active treatment arm in both trials.
“There were reports of contact dermatitis in the psoriasis studies, but we have not seen this in the AD trials,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Itch control evaluated
In a separate presentation of ADORING 1 and 2 results, Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, provided detailed information about itch control, which was evaluated with the Peak Pruritus–Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS).
“The PP-NRS considers a person’s worst itch over the past 24 hours based on an 11-point scale,” explained Dr. Simpson, who said that patients scored itch daily with comparisons made at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Over time, pruritus scores fell in both groups, but reductions were far steeper among those in the active treatment arms.
“In ADORING 1, there were greater reductions in itch as early as day 1,” Dr. Simpson reported. Although the differences in itch were not detected until day 2 in ADORING 2, the differences were already significant and clinically meaningful in both studies by the end of the first week.
By week 8, the mean reductions in PP-NRS scores were 2.6 and 2.4 in the vehicle arms of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively. In the treatment arm, the reduction was 4.1 points in both arms (P < .0001 for both studies).
Forty-eight–week follow-up planned
More than 90% of patients in both studies have rolled over into the open-label extension ADORING 3 trial, with a planned follow-up of 48 weeks, according to Dr. Silverberg, who said that those in the placebo arm have been crossed over to tapinarof.
The response and the safety appear to be similar in adults and children, although Dr. Silverberg said that further analyses of outcomes by age are planned. He noted that there is also an ongoing study of tapinarof in children with plaque psoriasis.
In AD in particular, Dr. Silverberg said there is “an unmet need” for a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. While topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of AD therapy in children as well as adults, he noted the limitations of these drugs, including that they can only be applied for limited periods.
Tapinarof binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which regulates immune function in the skin and is expressed in many skin cell types. By inhibiting AhR, tapinarof blocks cytokine activation and has an antioxidant effect.
Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor and director of pediatric dermatology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, has participated in clinical studies of tapinarof for AD, and said she has been impressed with its efficacy and tolerability in children as well as adults. In the case of children, parents, as well as patients, “valued the rapid onset of disease control, the once-daily application regimen, and the itch control,” she said in an interview after the meeting.
If approved, Dr. Hebert said, “this novel steroid-free medication has the potential to change the management arena for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
The recent introduction of new systemic therapies for AD, such as JAK inhibitors, has increased options for AD control, but “we still need effective and safe topical therapies, especially in children and young adults,” said Sonja Ständer, MD, head of the Interdisciplinary Center for Chronic Pruritus, University of Münster (Germany). Author of a comprehensive review article on AD in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 years ago, Dr. Ständer said results from the phase 3 topical tapinarof trials, as well as the phase 3 topical ruxolitinib trials, which were also presented as late breakers at the 2023 EADV meeting, provide “hope that an alternative to topical steroids will soon be available.”
Based on their safety and rapid control of itch in children with AD, “these will complement our current portfolio of topical therapies very well and have the potential to replace topical steroids early in therapy or to replace them altogether,” she told this news organization.
Dermavant Sciences, manufacturer of tapinarof, anticipates filing for Food and Drug Administration approval for AD in the first quarter of 2024, according to a company statement.
Dr. Silverberg and Dr. Simpson reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavant, which provided funding for the ADORING trials. Dr. Hebert has financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavent and other companies that have or are developing therapies for AD. Dr. Ständer reported financial relationships with Beiersdorf, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Hidradenitis suppurativa: Two anti-IL17A/F therapies yield positive results
BERLIN – In separate trials conducted in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), two biologics that inhibit the activity of interleukin-17A (IL-17A) and IL-17F were associated with highly encouraging rates of control.
One of the trials evaluated a nanobody inhibitor, sonelokimab, a molecule with a substantially smaller size than traditional monoclonal antibodies (40 kilodaltons vs. 150 kilodaltons). After 24 weeks of treatment, the most effective of the two study doses almost doubled the proportion of patients with complete resolution of draining tunnels (41.1% vs. 23.8%; P < .05) relative to placebo.
“I think the size of sonelokimab is important,” Brian Kirby, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Dublin, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. “We think the smaller size results in better penetration of inflamed tissue,” he added, noting that penetration of abscesses, fistulae, and tunnels has been recognized in the past as a potential weakness of the larger monoclonal antibodies.
The other set of anti-17-A/F set of data were generated by a pooled 48-week maintenance from the BE HEARD I and II trials with bimekizumab. The 16-week data from these two trials were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology earlier this year.
IL-17A/F trials
Both the
In the sonelokimab trial, called MIRA, 234 adults with HS were randomized in a 2:2:2:1 ratio to one of the two experimental arms, placebo, or a reference arm with the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab. Nearly 64% had Hurley stage II HS.
The primary endpoint was a 75% or greater reduction in total abscesses and nodules with no increase in draining tunnel count (HiSCR75) from baseline. Dr. Kirby said that this is more rigorous than the HiSCR50 endpoint more commonly used in HS clinical trials. Treatments were administered every 2 weeks for the first 8 weeks of a planned follow-up of 24 weeks and then every 4 weeks thereafter.
At 16 weeks, according to the data Dr. Kirby presented, both doses of sonelokimab were more active than placebo, but Dr. Kirby reported that the lower dose performed better for most objective endpoints.
For example, the HiSCR75 was reached by 43.3% of those randomized to the 120-mg dose (P < .001 vs. placebo), 34.8% of those randomized to the 240-mg dose (P <.01), and 14.7% of those randomized to placebo.
For HiSCR50, response rates were 65.7%, 53.0%, and 27.9%, for the 120-mg, 240-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Again, both the lower dose (P < .001) and the higher dose (P < .01) were significantly superior to placebo.
On the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4), which counts nodules and abscesses, score reductions were 19.3, 14.5, and 7.9 for the lower dose, higher dose, and placebo, respectively, with a greater statistical advantage for the lower relative to the higher dose over placebo (P <.001 vs. P <.01).
However, patient-focused outcomes were not necessarily greater for the lower dose. For the patient-completed measure, the Numerical Rating Scale 50% reduction in skin pain (NRS50), the proportion of patients responding at 12 weeks was numerically greater for the 240-mg dose (41.3%) than with the 120-mg dose (32.0%), although both reached the same statistical advantage (P < .001) over the 4.3% who reached this level of response on placebo.
For the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S), improvements from baseline were similar for the lower and higher dose, although there was a modest numerical and statistical advantage for the higher dose over placebo (P < .001 vs. P <.01).
The HiSCR50 (57.6%) and HiSCR75 (36.4%) responses were both lower for those randomized to the TNF inhibitor adalimumab relative to sonelokimab, but the smaller number of patients in this arm prohibited a statistical comparison.
Although oral candidiasis was more common among patients receiving either dose of sonelokimab than placebo, these were of mild to moderate severity. Dr. Kirby said that there were no unexpected safety issues, and sonelokimab was generally well tolerated.
The results are encouraging, but Dr. Kirby acknowledged that data are now needed to confirm that resolution of tunnels and fistulae is greater with a nanobody inhibitor of IL-17A/F than other targeted therapies. Even if this is validated, he said studies are needed to prove that the small relative molecule size is the reason behind the benefits.
Forty-eight–week bimekizumab data
From the pooled BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II maintenance data, the major message is that the robust responses observed at 16 weeks versus placebo were maintained at 48 weeks. More than 75% of patients retained a HiSCR50 response and more than 55% achieved a HiSCR75 response at the 48-week follow-up. The durable response was also reflected in other measures, according to Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, PhD, director of the department of dermatology, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany.
“Improvements in disease severity were seen over time,” Dr. Zouboulis reported. “The majority of patients with severe HS at baseline shifted to mild to moderate disease according to the IHS4 classification.”
To the degree that both sonelokimab and bimekizumab target IL-17A/F, these data are mutually reinforcing. Dr. Kirby said that there is a sizable body of data implicating IL-17A/F in driving HS, and the activity of inhibitors in support the clinical value of IL-17A/F suppression.
On Oct. 18, shortly after the EADV meeting concluded, the Food and Drug Administration approved bimekizumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the first approved indication in the United States. In the European Union, it was approved for psoriasis in 2021, and for psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Kirby has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake, which is developing sonelokimab and sponsored the MIRA trial. Dr. Christos, president of the European HS Foundation, has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including UCB, which makes bimekizumab and provided funding for the BE HEARD I and II trials.
BERLIN – In separate trials conducted in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), two biologics that inhibit the activity of interleukin-17A (IL-17A) and IL-17F were associated with highly encouraging rates of control.
One of the trials evaluated a nanobody inhibitor, sonelokimab, a molecule with a substantially smaller size than traditional monoclonal antibodies (40 kilodaltons vs. 150 kilodaltons). After 24 weeks of treatment, the most effective of the two study doses almost doubled the proportion of patients with complete resolution of draining tunnels (41.1% vs. 23.8%; P < .05) relative to placebo.
“I think the size of sonelokimab is important,” Brian Kirby, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Dublin, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. “We think the smaller size results in better penetration of inflamed tissue,” he added, noting that penetration of abscesses, fistulae, and tunnels has been recognized in the past as a potential weakness of the larger monoclonal antibodies.
The other set of anti-17-A/F set of data were generated by a pooled 48-week maintenance from the BE HEARD I and II trials with bimekizumab. The 16-week data from these two trials were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology earlier this year.
IL-17A/F trials
Both the
In the sonelokimab trial, called MIRA, 234 adults with HS were randomized in a 2:2:2:1 ratio to one of the two experimental arms, placebo, or a reference arm with the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab. Nearly 64% had Hurley stage II HS.
The primary endpoint was a 75% or greater reduction in total abscesses and nodules with no increase in draining tunnel count (HiSCR75) from baseline. Dr. Kirby said that this is more rigorous than the HiSCR50 endpoint more commonly used in HS clinical trials. Treatments were administered every 2 weeks for the first 8 weeks of a planned follow-up of 24 weeks and then every 4 weeks thereafter.
At 16 weeks, according to the data Dr. Kirby presented, both doses of sonelokimab were more active than placebo, but Dr. Kirby reported that the lower dose performed better for most objective endpoints.
For example, the HiSCR75 was reached by 43.3% of those randomized to the 120-mg dose (P < .001 vs. placebo), 34.8% of those randomized to the 240-mg dose (P <.01), and 14.7% of those randomized to placebo.
For HiSCR50, response rates were 65.7%, 53.0%, and 27.9%, for the 120-mg, 240-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Again, both the lower dose (P < .001) and the higher dose (P < .01) were significantly superior to placebo.
On the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4), which counts nodules and abscesses, score reductions were 19.3, 14.5, and 7.9 for the lower dose, higher dose, and placebo, respectively, with a greater statistical advantage for the lower relative to the higher dose over placebo (P <.001 vs. P <.01).
However, patient-focused outcomes were not necessarily greater for the lower dose. For the patient-completed measure, the Numerical Rating Scale 50% reduction in skin pain (NRS50), the proportion of patients responding at 12 weeks was numerically greater for the 240-mg dose (41.3%) than with the 120-mg dose (32.0%), although both reached the same statistical advantage (P < .001) over the 4.3% who reached this level of response on placebo.
For the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S), improvements from baseline were similar for the lower and higher dose, although there was a modest numerical and statistical advantage for the higher dose over placebo (P < .001 vs. P <.01).
The HiSCR50 (57.6%) and HiSCR75 (36.4%) responses were both lower for those randomized to the TNF inhibitor adalimumab relative to sonelokimab, but the smaller number of patients in this arm prohibited a statistical comparison.
Although oral candidiasis was more common among patients receiving either dose of sonelokimab than placebo, these were of mild to moderate severity. Dr. Kirby said that there were no unexpected safety issues, and sonelokimab was generally well tolerated.
The results are encouraging, but Dr. Kirby acknowledged that data are now needed to confirm that resolution of tunnels and fistulae is greater with a nanobody inhibitor of IL-17A/F than other targeted therapies. Even if this is validated, he said studies are needed to prove that the small relative molecule size is the reason behind the benefits.
Forty-eight–week bimekizumab data
From the pooled BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II maintenance data, the major message is that the robust responses observed at 16 weeks versus placebo were maintained at 48 weeks. More than 75% of patients retained a HiSCR50 response and more than 55% achieved a HiSCR75 response at the 48-week follow-up. The durable response was also reflected in other measures, according to Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, PhD, director of the department of dermatology, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany.
“Improvements in disease severity were seen over time,” Dr. Zouboulis reported. “The majority of patients with severe HS at baseline shifted to mild to moderate disease according to the IHS4 classification.”
To the degree that both sonelokimab and bimekizumab target IL-17A/F, these data are mutually reinforcing. Dr. Kirby said that there is a sizable body of data implicating IL-17A/F in driving HS, and the activity of inhibitors in support the clinical value of IL-17A/F suppression.
On Oct. 18, shortly after the EADV meeting concluded, the Food and Drug Administration approved bimekizumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the first approved indication in the United States. In the European Union, it was approved for psoriasis in 2021, and for psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Kirby has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake, which is developing sonelokimab and sponsored the MIRA trial. Dr. Christos, president of the European HS Foundation, has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including UCB, which makes bimekizumab and provided funding for the BE HEARD I and II trials.
BERLIN – In separate trials conducted in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), two biologics that inhibit the activity of interleukin-17A (IL-17A) and IL-17F were associated with highly encouraging rates of control.
One of the trials evaluated a nanobody inhibitor, sonelokimab, a molecule with a substantially smaller size than traditional monoclonal antibodies (40 kilodaltons vs. 150 kilodaltons). After 24 weeks of treatment, the most effective of the two study doses almost doubled the proportion of patients with complete resolution of draining tunnels (41.1% vs. 23.8%; P < .05) relative to placebo.
“I think the size of sonelokimab is important,” Brian Kirby, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Dublin, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. “We think the smaller size results in better penetration of inflamed tissue,” he added, noting that penetration of abscesses, fistulae, and tunnels has been recognized in the past as a potential weakness of the larger monoclonal antibodies.
The other set of anti-17-A/F set of data were generated by a pooled 48-week maintenance from the BE HEARD I and II trials with bimekizumab. The 16-week data from these two trials were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology earlier this year.
IL-17A/F trials
Both the
In the sonelokimab trial, called MIRA, 234 adults with HS were randomized in a 2:2:2:1 ratio to one of the two experimental arms, placebo, or a reference arm with the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab. Nearly 64% had Hurley stage II HS.
The primary endpoint was a 75% or greater reduction in total abscesses and nodules with no increase in draining tunnel count (HiSCR75) from baseline. Dr. Kirby said that this is more rigorous than the HiSCR50 endpoint more commonly used in HS clinical trials. Treatments were administered every 2 weeks for the first 8 weeks of a planned follow-up of 24 weeks and then every 4 weeks thereafter.
At 16 weeks, according to the data Dr. Kirby presented, both doses of sonelokimab were more active than placebo, but Dr. Kirby reported that the lower dose performed better for most objective endpoints.
For example, the HiSCR75 was reached by 43.3% of those randomized to the 120-mg dose (P < .001 vs. placebo), 34.8% of those randomized to the 240-mg dose (P <.01), and 14.7% of those randomized to placebo.
For HiSCR50, response rates were 65.7%, 53.0%, and 27.9%, for the 120-mg, 240-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Again, both the lower dose (P < .001) and the higher dose (P < .01) were significantly superior to placebo.
On the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4), which counts nodules and abscesses, score reductions were 19.3, 14.5, and 7.9 for the lower dose, higher dose, and placebo, respectively, with a greater statistical advantage for the lower relative to the higher dose over placebo (P <.001 vs. P <.01).
However, patient-focused outcomes were not necessarily greater for the lower dose. For the patient-completed measure, the Numerical Rating Scale 50% reduction in skin pain (NRS50), the proportion of patients responding at 12 weeks was numerically greater for the 240-mg dose (41.3%) than with the 120-mg dose (32.0%), although both reached the same statistical advantage (P < .001) over the 4.3% who reached this level of response on placebo.
For the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S), improvements from baseline were similar for the lower and higher dose, although there was a modest numerical and statistical advantage for the higher dose over placebo (P < .001 vs. P <.01).
The HiSCR50 (57.6%) and HiSCR75 (36.4%) responses were both lower for those randomized to the TNF inhibitor adalimumab relative to sonelokimab, but the smaller number of patients in this arm prohibited a statistical comparison.
Although oral candidiasis was more common among patients receiving either dose of sonelokimab than placebo, these were of mild to moderate severity. Dr. Kirby said that there were no unexpected safety issues, and sonelokimab was generally well tolerated.
The results are encouraging, but Dr. Kirby acknowledged that data are now needed to confirm that resolution of tunnels and fistulae is greater with a nanobody inhibitor of IL-17A/F than other targeted therapies. Even if this is validated, he said studies are needed to prove that the small relative molecule size is the reason behind the benefits.
Forty-eight–week bimekizumab data
From the pooled BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II maintenance data, the major message is that the robust responses observed at 16 weeks versus placebo were maintained at 48 weeks. More than 75% of patients retained a HiSCR50 response and more than 55% achieved a HiSCR75 response at the 48-week follow-up. The durable response was also reflected in other measures, according to Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, PhD, director of the department of dermatology, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany.
“Improvements in disease severity were seen over time,” Dr. Zouboulis reported. “The majority of patients with severe HS at baseline shifted to mild to moderate disease according to the IHS4 classification.”
To the degree that both sonelokimab and bimekizumab target IL-17A/F, these data are mutually reinforcing. Dr. Kirby said that there is a sizable body of data implicating IL-17A/F in driving HS, and the activity of inhibitors in support the clinical value of IL-17A/F suppression.
On Oct. 18, shortly after the EADV meeting concluded, the Food and Drug Administration approved bimekizumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the first approved indication in the United States. In the European Union, it was approved for psoriasis in 2021, and for psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Kirby has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake, which is developing sonelokimab and sponsored the MIRA trial. Dr. Christos, president of the European HS Foundation, has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including UCB, which makes bimekizumab and provided funding for the BE HEARD I and II trials.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
AI interpretation of CCTA unlocks value of inflammation as CV risk factor
Risk calculations might be transformed
, according to a study that suggests this approach would change treatment about half the time.
In patients with nonobstructive CAD, CCTA measurement of inflammation on the basis of the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) “predicts fatal and nonfatal cardiac events independently from clinical risk scores and routine CCTA interpretation,” reported Charalambos Antoniades, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, England.
This analysis was based on data from ORFAN, an ongoing study that expects to eventually collect data from 250,000 CCTA. There were multiple goals. The first was to evaluate whether there is a need and a role of CCTA to risk stratify patients without obstructive CAD. A second objective was to evaluate if the FAI inflammation score can quantify residual risk in these patients.
Based on the answers to these questions, the investigators then proceeded to determine if an AI risk model that combines data from the FAI score and risk factors is widely generalizable and, in addition, whether it reclassifies patients in a way meaningful to management.
CCTA-based inflammation is promising
The answers to all these questions were yes, according to data presented by Dr. Antoniades in a late-breaker at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So far, ORPHAN, which has multiple participating sites in the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, South America, Asia, and Australia, have data on more than 100,000 CCTAs. Approximately 40,000 have been processed. Of these, 82% have had nonobstructive CAD and the remaining obstructive disease.
In long-term follow-up, the numbers of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiac deaths were compared in these two groups. In absolute terms, the nonobstructive CAD group had about twice as many MACE (2,587 vs. 1,450) and cardiac deaths (1,118 vs. 636).
The rate of these events was much lower in the nonobstructive group , which had four times more patients than the obstructive group, but Dr. Antoniades said these data demonstrate substantial rates of events in the nonobstructive group as well as an unmet need to identify and treat risk associated with nonobstructive CAD.
When determining if coronary inflammation as measured with CCTA could be a means identifying risk independent of other factors, the FAI scores were evaluated by quartile in a nested cohort of 3,666 consecutive patients. FAI, which has been validated, is calculated with spatial changes in CCTA-measured perivascular fat composition after standardization for anatomy and other variables.
The discrimination for risk with FAI was impressive. When evaluated across all patients (obstructive or nonobstructive CAD), those in the highest FAI quartile had a hazard ratio (HR) for MACE that was more than six times higher (HR 6.76; P < .001) and a risk of cardiac mortality that was more than 20 times higher (HR 20.20; P < .001) than that of those in the first quartile.
“The prediction was independent of all other risk factors,” Dr. Antoniades reported.
Predictive value greater in nonobstructive CAD
When evaluated in nonobstructive disease, the predictive value of FAI was even greater. In obstructive CAD patients, the increased risk of MACE for the fourth relative to the first quartile was increased threefold (HR 3.15; P < .001), but it was increased almost fivefold among those with nonobstructive CAD (HR 4.77; P < .001). The increases for cardiac mortality were fivefold (HR 5.15; P < .001) and more than 10-fold (HR 10.49; P < .001) in these groups, respectively.
When a risk model based on AI that incorporated FAI plus other cardiovascular risk factors was applied retrospectively to the ORPHAN data, the predicted and actual event graph lines were nearly superimposable over a follow-up to 10 years at risk levels ranging from low to very high.
When this inflammation-based AI model was evaluated against standard risk prediction in patients with nonobstructive CAD, 30% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk category and 10% to a lower risk category.
When the AI-risk calculations were provided to clinicians at four hospitals over a recent 1-year period, it resulted “in changes of management in approximately half of patients,” Dr. Antoniades said.
Overall, Dr. Antoniades said these data provide evidence that coronary inflammation is an important driver of residual risk in patients who have nonobstructive CAD on CCTA, and he believes that the AI-enhanced interpretation of the FAI-based inflammatory burden has the potential to become an important management tool.
“AI-risk assessment may transform risk stratification and management of patients undergoing routine CCTA,” Dr. Antoniades said.
Imaging has potential for expanded risk assessment
The AHA-invited discussant, Viviany R. Taqueti, MD, director of the cardiac stress laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with the promise of evaluating inflammatory infiltrate in the coronary arteries as well as looking at fat in other tissues, such as skeletal muscle, to better risk stratify patients, but she cautioned about the limitations of conclusions based on observational data.
“A registry is not a randomized trial,” she said.
Characterizing AI as a “black box” in terms of understanding methodology, she also recommended further studies to validate the relative contribution of AI to inflammation alone in risk stratification.
Still, she believes that the “explosive growth” in imaging has created new opportunities for more precisely evaluating cardiovascular risk. She said these might be particularly helpful in the context of the “changing landscape” in CAD driven by less smoking, more obesity, and increased statin use. Overall, she endorsed the basic questions Dr. Antoniades is exploring.
“This is an incredibly intriguing idea that deserves continuing research,” she said.
Dr. Antoniades reported financial relationships with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Caristo Diagnostics, Covance, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MedImmune, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Taqueti reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Risk calculations might be transformed
Risk calculations might be transformed
, according to a study that suggests this approach would change treatment about half the time.
In patients with nonobstructive CAD, CCTA measurement of inflammation on the basis of the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) “predicts fatal and nonfatal cardiac events independently from clinical risk scores and routine CCTA interpretation,” reported Charalambos Antoniades, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, England.
This analysis was based on data from ORFAN, an ongoing study that expects to eventually collect data from 250,000 CCTA. There were multiple goals. The first was to evaluate whether there is a need and a role of CCTA to risk stratify patients without obstructive CAD. A second objective was to evaluate if the FAI inflammation score can quantify residual risk in these patients.
Based on the answers to these questions, the investigators then proceeded to determine if an AI risk model that combines data from the FAI score and risk factors is widely generalizable and, in addition, whether it reclassifies patients in a way meaningful to management.
CCTA-based inflammation is promising
The answers to all these questions were yes, according to data presented by Dr. Antoniades in a late-breaker at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So far, ORPHAN, which has multiple participating sites in the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, South America, Asia, and Australia, have data on more than 100,000 CCTAs. Approximately 40,000 have been processed. Of these, 82% have had nonobstructive CAD and the remaining obstructive disease.
In long-term follow-up, the numbers of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiac deaths were compared in these two groups. In absolute terms, the nonobstructive CAD group had about twice as many MACE (2,587 vs. 1,450) and cardiac deaths (1,118 vs. 636).
The rate of these events was much lower in the nonobstructive group , which had four times more patients than the obstructive group, but Dr. Antoniades said these data demonstrate substantial rates of events in the nonobstructive group as well as an unmet need to identify and treat risk associated with nonobstructive CAD.
When determining if coronary inflammation as measured with CCTA could be a means identifying risk independent of other factors, the FAI scores were evaluated by quartile in a nested cohort of 3,666 consecutive patients. FAI, which has been validated, is calculated with spatial changes in CCTA-measured perivascular fat composition after standardization for anatomy and other variables.
The discrimination for risk with FAI was impressive. When evaluated across all patients (obstructive or nonobstructive CAD), those in the highest FAI quartile had a hazard ratio (HR) for MACE that was more than six times higher (HR 6.76; P < .001) and a risk of cardiac mortality that was more than 20 times higher (HR 20.20; P < .001) than that of those in the first quartile.
“The prediction was independent of all other risk factors,” Dr. Antoniades reported.
Predictive value greater in nonobstructive CAD
When evaluated in nonobstructive disease, the predictive value of FAI was even greater. In obstructive CAD patients, the increased risk of MACE for the fourth relative to the first quartile was increased threefold (HR 3.15; P < .001), but it was increased almost fivefold among those with nonobstructive CAD (HR 4.77; P < .001). The increases for cardiac mortality were fivefold (HR 5.15; P < .001) and more than 10-fold (HR 10.49; P < .001) in these groups, respectively.
When a risk model based on AI that incorporated FAI plus other cardiovascular risk factors was applied retrospectively to the ORPHAN data, the predicted and actual event graph lines were nearly superimposable over a follow-up to 10 years at risk levels ranging from low to very high.
When this inflammation-based AI model was evaluated against standard risk prediction in patients with nonobstructive CAD, 30% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk category and 10% to a lower risk category.
When the AI-risk calculations were provided to clinicians at four hospitals over a recent 1-year period, it resulted “in changes of management in approximately half of patients,” Dr. Antoniades said.
Overall, Dr. Antoniades said these data provide evidence that coronary inflammation is an important driver of residual risk in patients who have nonobstructive CAD on CCTA, and he believes that the AI-enhanced interpretation of the FAI-based inflammatory burden has the potential to become an important management tool.
“AI-risk assessment may transform risk stratification and management of patients undergoing routine CCTA,” Dr. Antoniades said.
Imaging has potential for expanded risk assessment
The AHA-invited discussant, Viviany R. Taqueti, MD, director of the cardiac stress laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with the promise of evaluating inflammatory infiltrate in the coronary arteries as well as looking at fat in other tissues, such as skeletal muscle, to better risk stratify patients, but she cautioned about the limitations of conclusions based on observational data.
“A registry is not a randomized trial,” she said.
Characterizing AI as a “black box” in terms of understanding methodology, she also recommended further studies to validate the relative contribution of AI to inflammation alone in risk stratification.
Still, she believes that the “explosive growth” in imaging has created new opportunities for more precisely evaluating cardiovascular risk. She said these might be particularly helpful in the context of the “changing landscape” in CAD driven by less smoking, more obesity, and increased statin use. Overall, she endorsed the basic questions Dr. Antoniades is exploring.
“This is an incredibly intriguing idea that deserves continuing research,” she said.
Dr. Antoniades reported financial relationships with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Caristo Diagnostics, Covance, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MedImmune, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Taqueti reported no potential conflicts of interest.
, according to a study that suggests this approach would change treatment about half the time.
In patients with nonobstructive CAD, CCTA measurement of inflammation on the basis of the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) “predicts fatal and nonfatal cardiac events independently from clinical risk scores and routine CCTA interpretation,” reported Charalambos Antoniades, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, England.
This analysis was based on data from ORFAN, an ongoing study that expects to eventually collect data from 250,000 CCTA. There were multiple goals. The first was to evaluate whether there is a need and a role of CCTA to risk stratify patients without obstructive CAD. A second objective was to evaluate if the FAI inflammation score can quantify residual risk in these patients.
Based on the answers to these questions, the investigators then proceeded to determine if an AI risk model that combines data from the FAI score and risk factors is widely generalizable and, in addition, whether it reclassifies patients in a way meaningful to management.
CCTA-based inflammation is promising
The answers to all these questions were yes, according to data presented by Dr. Antoniades in a late-breaker at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So far, ORPHAN, which has multiple participating sites in the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, South America, Asia, and Australia, have data on more than 100,000 CCTAs. Approximately 40,000 have been processed. Of these, 82% have had nonobstructive CAD and the remaining obstructive disease.
In long-term follow-up, the numbers of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiac deaths were compared in these two groups. In absolute terms, the nonobstructive CAD group had about twice as many MACE (2,587 vs. 1,450) and cardiac deaths (1,118 vs. 636).
The rate of these events was much lower in the nonobstructive group , which had four times more patients than the obstructive group, but Dr. Antoniades said these data demonstrate substantial rates of events in the nonobstructive group as well as an unmet need to identify and treat risk associated with nonobstructive CAD.
When determining if coronary inflammation as measured with CCTA could be a means identifying risk independent of other factors, the FAI scores were evaluated by quartile in a nested cohort of 3,666 consecutive patients. FAI, which has been validated, is calculated with spatial changes in CCTA-measured perivascular fat composition after standardization for anatomy and other variables.
The discrimination for risk with FAI was impressive. When evaluated across all patients (obstructive or nonobstructive CAD), those in the highest FAI quartile had a hazard ratio (HR) for MACE that was more than six times higher (HR 6.76; P < .001) and a risk of cardiac mortality that was more than 20 times higher (HR 20.20; P < .001) than that of those in the first quartile.
“The prediction was independent of all other risk factors,” Dr. Antoniades reported.
Predictive value greater in nonobstructive CAD
When evaluated in nonobstructive disease, the predictive value of FAI was even greater. In obstructive CAD patients, the increased risk of MACE for the fourth relative to the first quartile was increased threefold (HR 3.15; P < .001), but it was increased almost fivefold among those with nonobstructive CAD (HR 4.77; P < .001). The increases for cardiac mortality were fivefold (HR 5.15; P < .001) and more than 10-fold (HR 10.49; P < .001) in these groups, respectively.
When a risk model based on AI that incorporated FAI plus other cardiovascular risk factors was applied retrospectively to the ORPHAN data, the predicted and actual event graph lines were nearly superimposable over a follow-up to 10 years at risk levels ranging from low to very high.
When this inflammation-based AI model was evaluated against standard risk prediction in patients with nonobstructive CAD, 30% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk category and 10% to a lower risk category.
When the AI-risk calculations were provided to clinicians at four hospitals over a recent 1-year period, it resulted “in changes of management in approximately half of patients,” Dr. Antoniades said.
Overall, Dr. Antoniades said these data provide evidence that coronary inflammation is an important driver of residual risk in patients who have nonobstructive CAD on CCTA, and he believes that the AI-enhanced interpretation of the FAI-based inflammatory burden has the potential to become an important management tool.
“AI-risk assessment may transform risk stratification and management of patients undergoing routine CCTA,” Dr. Antoniades said.
Imaging has potential for expanded risk assessment
The AHA-invited discussant, Viviany R. Taqueti, MD, director of the cardiac stress laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with the promise of evaluating inflammatory infiltrate in the coronary arteries as well as looking at fat in other tissues, such as skeletal muscle, to better risk stratify patients, but she cautioned about the limitations of conclusions based on observational data.
“A registry is not a randomized trial,” she said.
Characterizing AI as a “black box” in terms of understanding methodology, she also recommended further studies to validate the relative contribution of AI to inflammation alone in risk stratification.
Still, she believes that the “explosive growth” in imaging has created new opportunities for more precisely evaluating cardiovascular risk. She said these might be particularly helpful in the context of the “changing landscape” in CAD driven by less smoking, more obesity, and increased statin use. Overall, she endorsed the basic questions Dr. Antoniades is exploring.
“This is an incredibly intriguing idea that deserves continuing research,” she said.
Dr. Antoniades reported financial relationships with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Caristo Diagnostics, Covance, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MedImmune, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Taqueti reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AHA 2023
Parent concerns a factor when treating eczema in children with darker skin types
NEW YORK –
Skin diseases pose a greater risk of both hyper- and hypopigmentation in patients with darker skin types, but the fear and concern that this raises for permanent disfigurement is not limited to Blacks, Dr. Heath, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023.
“Culturally, pigmentation changes can be huge. For people of Indian descent, for example, pigmentary changes like light spots on the skin might be an obstacle to marriage, so it can really be life changing,” she added.
In patients with darker skin tones presenting with an inflammatory skin disease, such as AD or psoriasis, Dr. Heath advised asking specifically about change in skin tone even if it is not readily apparent. In pediatric patients, it is also appropriate to include parents in this conversation.
Consider the parent’s perspective
“When you are taking care of a child or adolescent, the patient is likely to be concerned about changes in pigmentation, but it is important to remember that the adult in the room might have had their own journey with brown skin and has dealt with the burden of pigment changes,” Dr. Heath said.
For the parent, the pigmentation changes, rather than the inflammation, might be the governing issue and the reason that he or she brought the child to the clinician. Dr. Heath suggested that it is important for caregivers to explicitly recognize their concern, explain that addressing the pigmentary changes is part of the treatment plan, and to create realistic expectations about how long pigmentary changes will take to resolve.
As an example, Dr. Heath recounted a difficult case of a Black infant with disseminated hyperpigmentation and features that did not preclude pathology other than AD. Dr. Heath created a multifaceted treatment plan to address the inflammation in distinct areas of the body that included low-strength topical steroids for the face, stronger steroids for the body, and advice on scalp and skin care.
“I thought this was a great treatment plan out of the gate – I was covering all of the things on my differential list – I thought that the mom would be thinking, this doctor is amazing,” Dr. Heath said.
Pigmentary changes are a priority
However, that was not what the patient’s mother was thinking. Having failed to explicitly recognize her concern about the pigmentation changes and how the treatment would address this issue, the mother was disappointed.
“She had one question: Will my baby ever be one color? That was her main concern,” said Dr. Heath, indicating that other clinicians seeing inflammatory diseases in children with darker skin types can learn from her experience.
“Really, you have to acknowledge that the condition you are treating is causing the pigmentation change, and we do see that and that we have a treatment plan in place,” she said.
Because of differences in how inflammatory skin diseases present in darker skin types, there is plenty of room for a delayed diagnosis for clinicians who do not see many of these patients, according to Dr. Heath. Follicular eczema, which is common in skin of color, often presents with pruritus but differences in the appearance of the underlying disease can threaten a delay in diagnosis.
In cases of follicular eczema with itch in darker skin, the bumps look and feel like goose bumps, which “means that the eczema is really active and inflamed,” Dr. Heath said. When the skin becomes smooth and the itch dissipates, “you know that they are under great control.”
Psoriasis is often missed in children with darker skin types based on the misperception that it is rare. Although it is true that it is less common in Blacks than Whites, it is not rare, according to Dr. Heath. In inspecting the telltale erythematous plaque–like lesions, clinicians might start to consider alternative diagnoses when they do not detect the same erythematous appearance, but the reddish tone is often concealed in darker skin.
She said that predominant involvement in the head and neck and diaper area is often more common in children of color and that nail or scalp involvement, when present, is often a clue that psoriasis is the diagnosis.
Again, because many clinicians do not think immediately of psoriasis in darker skin children with lesions in the scalp, Dr. Heath advised this is another reason to include psoriasis in the differential diagnosis.
“If you have a child that has failed multiple courses of treatment for tinea capitis and they have well-demarcated plaques, it’s time to really start to think about pediatric psoriasis,” she said.
Restoring skin tone can be the priority
Asked to comment on Dr. Heath’s advice about the importance of acknowledging pigmentary changes associated with inflammatory skin diseases in patients of color, Jenna Lester, MD, the founding director of the Skin of Color Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, called it an “often unspoken concern of patients.”
“Pigmentary changes that occur secondary to an inflammatory condition should be addressed and treated alongside the inciting condition,” she agreed.
Even if changes in skin color or skin tone are not a specific complaint of the patients, Dr. Lester also urged clinicians to raise the topic. If change in skin pigmentation is part of the clinical picture, this should be targeted in the treatment plan.
“In acne, for example, often times I find that patients are as worried about postinflammatory hyperpigmentation as they are about their acne,” she said, reiterating the advice provided by Dr. Heath.
Dr. Heath has financial relationships with Arcutis, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Regeneron. Dr. Lester reported no potential conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK –
Skin diseases pose a greater risk of both hyper- and hypopigmentation in patients with darker skin types, but the fear and concern that this raises for permanent disfigurement is not limited to Blacks, Dr. Heath, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023.
“Culturally, pigmentation changes can be huge. For people of Indian descent, for example, pigmentary changes like light spots on the skin might be an obstacle to marriage, so it can really be life changing,” she added.
In patients with darker skin tones presenting with an inflammatory skin disease, such as AD or psoriasis, Dr. Heath advised asking specifically about change in skin tone even if it is not readily apparent. In pediatric patients, it is also appropriate to include parents in this conversation.
Consider the parent’s perspective
“When you are taking care of a child or adolescent, the patient is likely to be concerned about changes in pigmentation, but it is important to remember that the adult in the room might have had their own journey with brown skin and has dealt with the burden of pigment changes,” Dr. Heath said.
For the parent, the pigmentation changes, rather than the inflammation, might be the governing issue and the reason that he or she brought the child to the clinician. Dr. Heath suggested that it is important for caregivers to explicitly recognize their concern, explain that addressing the pigmentary changes is part of the treatment plan, and to create realistic expectations about how long pigmentary changes will take to resolve.
As an example, Dr. Heath recounted a difficult case of a Black infant with disseminated hyperpigmentation and features that did not preclude pathology other than AD. Dr. Heath created a multifaceted treatment plan to address the inflammation in distinct areas of the body that included low-strength topical steroids for the face, stronger steroids for the body, and advice on scalp and skin care.
“I thought this was a great treatment plan out of the gate – I was covering all of the things on my differential list – I thought that the mom would be thinking, this doctor is amazing,” Dr. Heath said.
Pigmentary changes are a priority
However, that was not what the patient’s mother was thinking. Having failed to explicitly recognize her concern about the pigmentation changes and how the treatment would address this issue, the mother was disappointed.
“She had one question: Will my baby ever be one color? That was her main concern,” said Dr. Heath, indicating that other clinicians seeing inflammatory diseases in children with darker skin types can learn from her experience.
“Really, you have to acknowledge that the condition you are treating is causing the pigmentation change, and we do see that and that we have a treatment plan in place,” she said.
Because of differences in how inflammatory skin diseases present in darker skin types, there is plenty of room for a delayed diagnosis for clinicians who do not see many of these patients, according to Dr. Heath. Follicular eczema, which is common in skin of color, often presents with pruritus but differences in the appearance of the underlying disease can threaten a delay in diagnosis.
In cases of follicular eczema with itch in darker skin, the bumps look and feel like goose bumps, which “means that the eczema is really active and inflamed,” Dr. Heath said. When the skin becomes smooth and the itch dissipates, “you know that they are under great control.”
Psoriasis is often missed in children with darker skin types based on the misperception that it is rare. Although it is true that it is less common in Blacks than Whites, it is not rare, according to Dr. Heath. In inspecting the telltale erythematous plaque–like lesions, clinicians might start to consider alternative diagnoses when they do not detect the same erythematous appearance, but the reddish tone is often concealed in darker skin.
She said that predominant involvement in the head and neck and diaper area is often more common in children of color and that nail or scalp involvement, when present, is often a clue that psoriasis is the diagnosis.
Again, because many clinicians do not think immediately of psoriasis in darker skin children with lesions in the scalp, Dr. Heath advised this is another reason to include psoriasis in the differential diagnosis.
“If you have a child that has failed multiple courses of treatment for tinea capitis and they have well-demarcated plaques, it’s time to really start to think about pediatric psoriasis,” she said.
Restoring skin tone can be the priority
Asked to comment on Dr. Heath’s advice about the importance of acknowledging pigmentary changes associated with inflammatory skin diseases in patients of color, Jenna Lester, MD, the founding director of the Skin of Color Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, called it an “often unspoken concern of patients.”
“Pigmentary changes that occur secondary to an inflammatory condition should be addressed and treated alongside the inciting condition,” she agreed.
Even if changes in skin color or skin tone are not a specific complaint of the patients, Dr. Lester also urged clinicians to raise the topic. If change in skin pigmentation is part of the clinical picture, this should be targeted in the treatment plan.
“In acne, for example, often times I find that patients are as worried about postinflammatory hyperpigmentation as they are about their acne,” she said, reiterating the advice provided by Dr. Heath.
Dr. Heath has financial relationships with Arcutis, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Regeneron. Dr. Lester reported no potential conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK –
Skin diseases pose a greater risk of both hyper- and hypopigmentation in patients with darker skin types, but the fear and concern that this raises for permanent disfigurement is not limited to Blacks, Dr. Heath, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023.
“Culturally, pigmentation changes can be huge. For people of Indian descent, for example, pigmentary changes like light spots on the skin might be an obstacle to marriage, so it can really be life changing,” she added.
In patients with darker skin tones presenting with an inflammatory skin disease, such as AD or psoriasis, Dr. Heath advised asking specifically about change in skin tone even if it is not readily apparent. In pediatric patients, it is also appropriate to include parents in this conversation.
Consider the parent’s perspective
“When you are taking care of a child or adolescent, the patient is likely to be concerned about changes in pigmentation, but it is important to remember that the adult in the room might have had their own journey with brown skin and has dealt with the burden of pigment changes,” Dr. Heath said.
For the parent, the pigmentation changes, rather than the inflammation, might be the governing issue and the reason that he or she brought the child to the clinician. Dr. Heath suggested that it is important for caregivers to explicitly recognize their concern, explain that addressing the pigmentary changes is part of the treatment plan, and to create realistic expectations about how long pigmentary changes will take to resolve.
As an example, Dr. Heath recounted a difficult case of a Black infant with disseminated hyperpigmentation and features that did not preclude pathology other than AD. Dr. Heath created a multifaceted treatment plan to address the inflammation in distinct areas of the body that included low-strength topical steroids for the face, stronger steroids for the body, and advice on scalp and skin care.
“I thought this was a great treatment plan out of the gate – I was covering all of the things on my differential list – I thought that the mom would be thinking, this doctor is amazing,” Dr. Heath said.
Pigmentary changes are a priority
However, that was not what the patient’s mother was thinking. Having failed to explicitly recognize her concern about the pigmentation changes and how the treatment would address this issue, the mother was disappointed.
“She had one question: Will my baby ever be one color? That was her main concern,” said Dr. Heath, indicating that other clinicians seeing inflammatory diseases in children with darker skin types can learn from her experience.
“Really, you have to acknowledge that the condition you are treating is causing the pigmentation change, and we do see that and that we have a treatment plan in place,” she said.
Because of differences in how inflammatory skin diseases present in darker skin types, there is plenty of room for a delayed diagnosis for clinicians who do not see many of these patients, according to Dr. Heath. Follicular eczema, which is common in skin of color, often presents with pruritus but differences in the appearance of the underlying disease can threaten a delay in diagnosis.
In cases of follicular eczema with itch in darker skin, the bumps look and feel like goose bumps, which “means that the eczema is really active and inflamed,” Dr. Heath said. When the skin becomes smooth and the itch dissipates, “you know that they are under great control.”
Psoriasis is often missed in children with darker skin types based on the misperception that it is rare. Although it is true that it is less common in Blacks than Whites, it is not rare, according to Dr. Heath. In inspecting the telltale erythematous plaque–like lesions, clinicians might start to consider alternative diagnoses when they do not detect the same erythematous appearance, but the reddish tone is often concealed in darker skin.
She said that predominant involvement in the head and neck and diaper area is often more common in children of color and that nail or scalp involvement, when present, is often a clue that psoriasis is the diagnosis.
Again, because many clinicians do not think immediately of psoriasis in darker skin children with lesions in the scalp, Dr. Heath advised this is another reason to include psoriasis in the differential diagnosis.
“If you have a child that has failed multiple courses of treatment for tinea capitis and they have well-demarcated plaques, it’s time to really start to think about pediatric psoriasis,” she said.
Restoring skin tone can be the priority
Asked to comment on Dr. Heath’s advice about the importance of acknowledging pigmentary changes associated with inflammatory skin diseases in patients of color, Jenna Lester, MD, the founding director of the Skin of Color Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, called it an “often unspoken concern of patients.”
“Pigmentary changes that occur secondary to an inflammatory condition should be addressed and treated alongside the inciting condition,” she agreed.
Even if changes in skin color or skin tone are not a specific complaint of the patients, Dr. Lester also urged clinicians to raise the topic. If change in skin pigmentation is part of the clinical picture, this should be targeted in the treatment plan.
“In acne, for example, often times I find that patients are as worried about postinflammatory hyperpigmentation as they are about their acne,” she said, reiterating the advice provided by Dr. Heath.
Dr. Heath has financial relationships with Arcutis, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Regeneron. Dr. Lester reported no potential conflicts of interest.
AT SOC 2023
Adolescents with migraine need smooth handoff to adult care
, according to a headache specialist who treats adults and children and spoke at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
“I would start at about the age of 15 or 16,” said Hope L. O’Brien, MD, Headache Center of Hope, University of Cincinnati.
Describing the steps that she thinks should be included in an effective transition, Dr. O’Brien maintained, “you will have a greater chance of successful transition and lessen the likelihood of the chronicity and the poor outcomes that we see in adults.”
Dr. O’Brien, who developed a headache clinic that serves individuals between the ages of 15 and 27, has substantial experience with headache patients in this age range. She acknowledged that there are no guideline recommendations for how best to guide the transition from pediatric to adult care, but she has developed some strategies at her own institution, including a tool for determining when the transition should be considered.
“Transition readiness is something that you need to think about,” she said. “You don’t just do it [automatically] at the age of 18.”
TRAQ questionnaire is helpful
The Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) is one tool that can be helpful, according to Dr. O’Brien, This tool, which can be used to evaluate whether young patients feel prepared to describe their own health status and needs and advocate on their own behalf, is not specific to headache, but the principle is particularly important in headache because of the importance of the patient’s history. Dr. O’Brien said that a fellow in her program, Allyson Bazarsky, MD, who is now affiliated with the University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, validated TRAQ for headache about 6 years ago.
“TRAQ is available online. It’s free. You can download it as a PDF,” Dr. O’Brien said. In fact, several age-specific versions can now be found readily on a web search for TRAQ questionnaire.
Ultimately, TRAQ helps the clinician to gauge what patients know about their disease, the medications they are taking, and the relevance of any comorbidities, such as mood disorders. It also provides insight about the ability to understand their health issues and to communicate well with caregivers.
Dr. O’Brien sees this as a process over time, rather than something to be implemented a few months before the transition.
“It is important to start making the shift during childhood and talking directly to the child,” Dr. O’Brien said. If education about the disease and its triggers are started relatively early in adolescence, the transition will not only be easier, but patients might have a chance to understand and control their disease at an earlier age.
With this kind of approach, most children are at least in the preparation stage by age 18 years. However, the age at which patients are suitable for transition varies substantially. Many patients 18 years of age or older are in the “action phase,” meaning it is time to take steps to transition.
Again, based on the interrelationship between headache and comorbidities, particularly mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety, the goal should not be limited to headache. Young adults should be educated about taking responsibility for their overall health.
In addition to educating the patient, Dr. O’Brien recommended preparing a transfer packet, such as the one described in an article published in Headache. Geared for communicating with the clinician who will take over care, the contents should include a detailed medical history along with the current treatment plan and list of medications that have been effective and those that have failed, according to Dr. O’Brien.
“An emergency plan in the form of an emergency department letter in case the patient needs to seek emergent care at an outside facility” is also appropriate, Dr. O’Brien said.
The patient should be aware of what is in the transfer pack in order to participate in an informed discussion of health care with the adult neurologist.
Poor transition linked to poor outcomes
A substantial proportion of adolescents with migraine continue to experience episodes as an adult, particularly those with a delayed diagnosis of migraine, those with a first degree relative who has migraine, and those with poor health habits, but this is not inevitable. Dr. O’Brien noted that “unsuccessful transition of care” into adulthood is a factor associated with poorer outcomes, making it an appropriate target for optimizing outcomes.
“Have that discussion on transfer of care with an action plan and do that early, especially in those with chronic or persistent disability headaches,” Dr. O’Brien emphasized.
This is pertinent advice, according to Amy A. Gelfand, MD, director of the child and adolescent headache program at Benioff Children’s Hospitals, University of California, San Francisco. Senior author of a comprehensive review article on pediatric migraine in Neurologic Clinics, Dr. Gelfand said the practical value of young adults learning what medications they are taking, and why, can place them in a better position to monitor their disease and to understand when a clinical visit is appropriate.
“I agree that it is important to help young adults (i.e., 18- or 19-year-olds) to prepare for the transition from the pediatric health care environment to the adult one,” said Dr. Gelfand, who has written frequently on this and related topics, such as the impact of comorbidities on outcome.
Dr. O’Brien reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Guidepoint, Pfizer, and Vector Psychometric Group. Dr. Gelfand reports financial relationships with Allergan, Eli Lilly, EMKinetics, eNeura, Teva and Zosano.
, according to a headache specialist who treats adults and children and spoke at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
“I would start at about the age of 15 or 16,” said Hope L. O’Brien, MD, Headache Center of Hope, University of Cincinnati.
Describing the steps that she thinks should be included in an effective transition, Dr. O’Brien maintained, “you will have a greater chance of successful transition and lessen the likelihood of the chronicity and the poor outcomes that we see in adults.”
Dr. O’Brien, who developed a headache clinic that serves individuals between the ages of 15 and 27, has substantial experience with headache patients in this age range. She acknowledged that there are no guideline recommendations for how best to guide the transition from pediatric to adult care, but she has developed some strategies at her own institution, including a tool for determining when the transition should be considered.
“Transition readiness is something that you need to think about,” she said. “You don’t just do it [automatically] at the age of 18.”
TRAQ questionnaire is helpful
The Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) is one tool that can be helpful, according to Dr. O’Brien, This tool, which can be used to evaluate whether young patients feel prepared to describe their own health status and needs and advocate on their own behalf, is not specific to headache, but the principle is particularly important in headache because of the importance of the patient’s history. Dr. O’Brien said that a fellow in her program, Allyson Bazarsky, MD, who is now affiliated with the University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, validated TRAQ for headache about 6 years ago.
“TRAQ is available online. It’s free. You can download it as a PDF,” Dr. O’Brien said. In fact, several age-specific versions can now be found readily on a web search for TRAQ questionnaire.
Ultimately, TRAQ helps the clinician to gauge what patients know about their disease, the medications they are taking, and the relevance of any comorbidities, such as mood disorders. It also provides insight about the ability to understand their health issues and to communicate well with caregivers.
Dr. O’Brien sees this as a process over time, rather than something to be implemented a few months before the transition.
“It is important to start making the shift during childhood and talking directly to the child,” Dr. O’Brien said. If education about the disease and its triggers are started relatively early in adolescence, the transition will not only be easier, but patients might have a chance to understand and control their disease at an earlier age.
With this kind of approach, most children are at least in the preparation stage by age 18 years. However, the age at which patients are suitable for transition varies substantially. Many patients 18 years of age or older are in the “action phase,” meaning it is time to take steps to transition.
Again, based on the interrelationship between headache and comorbidities, particularly mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety, the goal should not be limited to headache. Young adults should be educated about taking responsibility for their overall health.
In addition to educating the patient, Dr. O’Brien recommended preparing a transfer packet, such as the one described in an article published in Headache. Geared for communicating with the clinician who will take over care, the contents should include a detailed medical history along with the current treatment plan and list of medications that have been effective and those that have failed, according to Dr. O’Brien.
“An emergency plan in the form of an emergency department letter in case the patient needs to seek emergent care at an outside facility” is also appropriate, Dr. O’Brien said.
The patient should be aware of what is in the transfer pack in order to participate in an informed discussion of health care with the adult neurologist.
Poor transition linked to poor outcomes
A substantial proportion of adolescents with migraine continue to experience episodes as an adult, particularly those with a delayed diagnosis of migraine, those with a first degree relative who has migraine, and those with poor health habits, but this is not inevitable. Dr. O’Brien noted that “unsuccessful transition of care” into adulthood is a factor associated with poorer outcomes, making it an appropriate target for optimizing outcomes.
“Have that discussion on transfer of care with an action plan and do that early, especially in those with chronic or persistent disability headaches,” Dr. O’Brien emphasized.
This is pertinent advice, according to Amy A. Gelfand, MD, director of the child and adolescent headache program at Benioff Children’s Hospitals, University of California, San Francisco. Senior author of a comprehensive review article on pediatric migraine in Neurologic Clinics, Dr. Gelfand said the practical value of young adults learning what medications they are taking, and why, can place them in a better position to monitor their disease and to understand when a clinical visit is appropriate.
“I agree that it is important to help young adults (i.e., 18- or 19-year-olds) to prepare for the transition from the pediatric health care environment to the adult one,” said Dr. Gelfand, who has written frequently on this and related topics, such as the impact of comorbidities on outcome.
Dr. O’Brien reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Guidepoint, Pfizer, and Vector Psychometric Group. Dr. Gelfand reports financial relationships with Allergan, Eli Lilly, EMKinetics, eNeura, Teva and Zosano.
, according to a headache specialist who treats adults and children and spoke at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
“I would start at about the age of 15 or 16,” said Hope L. O’Brien, MD, Headache Center of Hope, University of Cincinnati.
Describing the steps that she thinks should be included in an effective transition, Dr. O’Brien maintained, “you will have a greater chance of successful transition and lessen the likelihood of the chronicity and the poor outcomes that we see in adults.”
Dr. O’Brien, who developed a headache clinic that serves individuals between the ages of 15 and 27, has substantial experience with headache patients in this age range. She acknowledged that there are no guideline recommendations for how best to guide the transition from pediatric to adult care, but she has developed some strategies at her own institution, including a tool for determining when the transition should be considered.
“Transition readiness is something that you need to think about,” she said. “You don’t just do it [automatically] at the age of 18.”
TRAQ questionnaire is helpful
The Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) is one tool that can be helpful, according to Dr. O’Brien, This tool, which can be used to evaluate whether young patients feel prepared to describe their own health status and needs and advocate on their own behalf, is not specific to headache, but the principle is particularly important in headache because of the importance of the patient’s history. Dr. O’Brien said that a fellow in her program, Allyson Bazarsky, MD, who is now affiliated with the University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, validated TRAQ for headache about 6 years ago.
“TRAQ is available online. It’s free. You can download it as a PDF,” Dr. O’Brien said. In fact, several age-specific versions can now be found readily on a web search for TRAQ questionnaire.
Ultimately, TRAQ helps the clinician to gauge what patients know about their disease, the medications they are taking, and the relevance of any comorbidities, such as mood disorders. It also provides insight about the ability to understand their health issues and to communicate well with caregivers.
Dr. O’Brien sees this as a process over time, rather than something to be implemented a few months before the transition.
“It is important to start making the shift during childhood and talking directly to the child,” Dr. O’Brien said. If education about the disease and its triggers are started relatively early in adolescence, the transition will not only be easier, but patients might have a chance to understand and control their disease at an earlier age.
With this kind of approach, most children are at least in the preparation stage by age 18 years. However, the age at which patients are suitable for transition varies substantially. Many patients 18 years of age or older are in the “action phase,” meaning it is time to take steps to transition.
Again, based on the interrelationship between headache and comorbidities, particularly mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety, the goal should not be limited to headache. Young adults should be educated about taking responsibility for their overall health.
In addition to educating the patient, Dr. O’Brien recommended preparing a transfer packet, such as the one described in an article published in Headache. Geared for communicating with the clinician who will take over care, the contents should include a detailed medical history along with the current treatment plan and list of medications that have been effective and those that have failed, according to Dr. O’Brien.
“An emergency plan in the form of an emergency department letter in case the patient needs to seek emergent care at an outside facility” is also appropriate, Dr. O’Brien said.
The patient should be aware of what is in the transfer pack in order to participate in an informed discussion of health care with the adult neurologist.
Poor transition linked to poor outcomes
A substantial proportion of adolescents with migraine continue to experience episodes as an adult, particularly those with a delayed diagnosis of migraine, those with a first degree relative who has migraine, and those with poor health habits, but this is not inevitable. Dr. O’Brien noted that “unsuccessful transition of care” into adulthood is a factor associated with poorer outcomes, making it an appropriate target for optimizing outcomes.
“Have that discussion on transfer of care with an action plan and do that early, especially in those with chronic or persistent disability headaches,” Dr. O’Brien emphasized.
This is pertinent advice, according to Amy A. Gelfand, MD, director of the child and adolescent headache program at Benioff Children’s Hospitals, University of California, San Francisco. Senior author of a comprehensive review article on pediatric migraine in Neurologic Clinics, Dr. Gelfand said the practical value of young adults learning what medications they are taking, and why, can place them in a better position to monitor their disease and to understand when a clinical visit is appropriate.
“I agree that it is important to help young adults (i.e., 18- or 19-year-olds) to prepare for the transition from the pediatric health care environment to the adult one,” said Dr. Gelfand, who has written frequently on this and related topics, such as the impact of comorbidities on outcome.
Dr. O’Brien reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Guidepoint, Pfizer, and Vector Psychometric Group. Dr. Gelfand reports financial relationships with Allergan, Eli Lilly, EMKinetics, eNeura, Teva and Zosano.
FROM THE 2023 SCOTTSDALE HEADACHE SYMPOSIUM
Alternative antirejection regimen is efficacious in pediatric heart transplant
Study challenges everolimus boxed warning
according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.
Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.
Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.
In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection
The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m2 every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).
In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).
The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.
Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.
On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.
In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).
Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).
Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
Study supports safety of everolimus regimen
The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.
However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.
“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.
Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.
He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.
Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.
The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.
Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,
Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.
Study challenges everolimus boxed warning
Study challenges everolimus boxed warning
according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.
Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.
Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.
In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection
The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m2 every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).
In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).
The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.
Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.
On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.
In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).
Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).
Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
Study supports safety of everolimus regimen
The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.
However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.
“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.
Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.
He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.
Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.
The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.
Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,
Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.
according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.
Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.
Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.
In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection
The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m2 every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).
In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).
The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.
Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.
On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.
In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).
Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).
Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
Study supports safety of everolimus regimen
The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.
However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.
“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.
Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.
He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.
Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.
The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.
Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,
Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.
FROM AHA 2023
Avoid adding to minority stress when treating headache in LGBTQIA+ patients
It is “important not to assume that just because someone is a member of the LGBTQ+ community they will need psychiatric or behavioral health support,” said Maya A. Marzouk, PhD, division of behavioral medicine and clinical psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Instead, it is useful not to make any assumptions. There is a potential association between minority status and headache susceptibility, but it is more reasonable initially to address the diagnosis and treatment of headache in LGBTQIA+ patients the same way it is addressed in any other patient, Dr. Marzouk said at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
The acronym to describe individuals with gender identities different from male and female and sexual orientations not limited to heterosexuality has been in almost constant evolution over several decades. An addition sign that accompanies LGBTQIA refers to those who do not identify with any letters in the acronym (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual).
Take steps to normalize the interaction
Although many clinicians have been acclimated to these diverse identifies, not all have risen above preconceptions that become obstacles to effective care, according to Dr. Marzouk. In the context of headache management, Dr. Marzouk emphasized the need to be respectful of the range of gender identities and sexual orientations and to take steps to normalize the interaction.
For example, Dr. Marzouk advised using gender-neutral language at the start of each patient encounter and ask open-ended questions about gender, sexual identify, and pronouns to avoid patient discomfort from misidentification. In turn, the clinicians can establish their own gender identification and preferred pronouns to reinforce the idea that doing so is normal behavior.
This change in approach should be made “for all patients. Do not try to guess who needs them,” she said.
Intake forms and office atmosphere, such as signs and images, should also be welcoming to all patients, she added. Rather than trying to make adjustments for a LGBTQIA+ visit, Dr. Marzouk said a uniform approach helps normalize the experience of LGBTQIA+ patients without singling them out.
Despite the effort to provide an open and welcoming environment, Dr. Marzouk acknowledged that mistakes are difficult to avoid for those with limited experience serving the LGBTQIA+ community. When mistakes are made, she advised clinicians to immediately acknowledge the mistake and ask for guidance from the patient.
The potential offense is making the patient feel “other” or abnormal.
A higher rate of migraine
The interactions that LBGTQIA+ patients have with others outside their community is a possible explanation for the substantial rate of headache as well as headache with comorbid psychiatric disorders in this population.
In a survey published in 2020, the rate of migraine was 19.7% in heterosexual women, 26.7% in lesbians, and 36.8% in bisexual women. Among men, it rose from 9.8% in heterosexuals to 14.8% in gays and then to 22.8% in bisexuals.
Migraine relative to headache is also associated with more mood disorders among LGBTQIA+ individuals. In a study published in 2022, LGBTQIA+ patients with migraine relative to those with headache were more likely to have depression (46.4% vs. 22.3%; P < .001), anxiety (72.1% vs. 51.6%; P < .001), and posttraumatic stress disorder (37.5% vs. 21.4%; P < .001).
A vicious cycle of underdiagnosis and undertreatment
These associations are consistent with minority stress theory, according to Dr. Marzouk. This theory postulates that the associated stress of discrimination, rejection, and microaggressions, such as explicit efforts to make LGBTQIA+ individuals to feel “other,” produces epigenetic changes and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. In turn, this plays a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.
The inconsistency with which minority stress affects LGBTQIA+ patients might be due to relative differences in social support, coping skills, an innate resilience to these effects, Dr. Marzouk explained.
Dr. Marzouk characterized the LGBTQIA+ community as “underserved” for treatment of headache. She suggested that medical mistrust and self-blame among LGBTQIA+ individuals might be factors contributing to a vicious cycle of underdiagnosis and undertreatment. Efforts by the medical community to reach out to the LGBTQIA+ community are appropriate to address an unmet need.
“Individuals with psychiatric comorbidities may experience even more benefit from migraine care,” she said.
Clinical studies should be more inclusive
While agreeing in principle with these remarks, Eric A. Kaiser, MD, PhD, department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that this area would be better advanced if studies routinely included patients with diverse-gender identities and sexual orientations. Speaking about how to organize these studies, Dr. Kaiser suggested that enrollment criteria should explicitly seek these individuals and that these differences should be captured in the baseline characteristics.
“For example, gender options could include man, woman, non-binary, gender diverse, gender nonconforming, or gender nonspecified,” he said.
To close “the significant knowledge gap that exists in managing headache disorders in sexually- and gender- diverse people,” Dr. Kaiser said that clinical research studies, like patient treatment of diverse populations, “should be conducted with welcoming and affirming practices.”
Dr. Marzouk reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaiser reported financial relationships with Amgen and Lundbeck.
It is “important not to assume that just because someone is a member of the LGBTQ+ community they will need psychiatric or behavioral health support,” said Maya A. Marzouk, PhD, division of behavioral medicine and clinical psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Instead, it is useful not to make any assumptions. There is a potential association between minority status and headache susceptibility, but it is more reasonable initially to address the diagnosis and treatment of headache in LGBTQIA+ patients the same way it is addressed in any other patient, Dr. Marzouk said at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
The acronym to describe individuals with gender identities different from male and female and sexual orientations not limited to heterosexuality has been in almost constant evolution over several decades. An addition sign that accompanies LGBTQIA refers to those who do not identify with any letters in the acronym (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual).
Take steps to normalize the interaction
Although many clinicians have been acclimated to these diverse identifies, not all have risen above preconceptions that become obstacles to effective care, according to Dr. Marzouk. In the context of headache management, Dr. Marzouk emphasized the need to be respectful of the range of gender identities and sexual orientations and to take steps to normalize the interaction.
For example, Dr. Marzouk advised using gender-neutral language at the start of each patient encounter and ask open-ended questions about gender, sexual identify, and pronouns to avoid patient discomfort from misidentification. In turn, the clinicians can establish their own gender identification and preferred pronouns to reinforce the idea that doing so is normal behavior.
This change in approach should be made “for all patients. Do not try to guess who needs them,” she said.
Intake forms and office atmosphere, such as signs and images, should also be welcoming to all patients, she added. Rather than trying to make adjustments for a LGBTQIA+ visit, Dr. Marzouk said a uniform approach helps normalize the experience of LGBTQIA+ patients without singling them out.
Despite the effort to provide an open and welcoming environment, Dr. Marzouk acknowledged that mistakes are difficult to avoid for those with limited experience serving the LGBTQIA+ community. When mistakes are made, she advised clinicians to immediately acknowledge the mistake and ask for guidance from the patient.
The potential offense is making the patient feel “other” or abnormal.
A higher rate of migraine
The interactions that LBGTQIA+ patients have with others outside their community is a possible explanation for the substantial rate of headache as well as headache with comorbid psychiatric disorders in this population.
In a survey published in 2020, the rate of migraine was 19.7% in heterosexual women, 26.7% in lesbians, and 36.8% in bisexual women. Among men, it rose from 9.8% in heterosexuals to 14.8% in gays and then to 22.8% in bisexuals.
Migraine relative to headache is also associated with more mood disorders among LGBTQIA+ individuals. In a study published in 2022, LGBTQIA+ patients with migraine relative to those with headache were more likely to have depression (46.4% vs. 22.3%; P < .001), anxiety (72.1% vs. 51.6%; P < .001), and posttraumatic stress disorder (37.5% vs. 21.4%; P < .001).
A vicious cycle of underdiagnosis and undertreatment
These associations are consistent with minority stress theory, according to Dr. Marzouk. This theory postulates that the associated stress of discrimination, rejection, and microaggressions, such as explicit efforts to make LGBTQIA+ individuals to feel “other,” produces epigenetic changes and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. In turn, this plays a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.
The inconsistency with which minority stress affects LGBTQIA+ patients might be due to relative differences in social support, coping skills, an innate resilience to these effects, Dr. Marzouk explained.
Dr. Marzouk characterized the LGBTQIA+ community as “underserved” for treatment of headache. She suggested that medical mistrust and self-blame among LGBTQIA+ individuals might be factors contributing to a vicious cycle of underdiagnosis and undertreatment. Efforts by the medical community to reach out to the LGBTQIA+ community are appropriate to address an unmet need.
“Individuals with psychiatric comorbidities may experience even more benefit from migraine care,” she said.
Clinical studies should be more inclusive
While agreeing in principle with these remarks, Eric A. Kaiser, MD, PhD, department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that this area would be better advanced if studies routinely included patients with diverse-gender identities and sexual orientations. Speaking about how to organize these studies, Dr. Kaiser suggested that enrollment criteria should explicitly seek these individuals and that these differences should be captured in the baseline characteristics.
“For example, gender options could include man, woman, non-binary, gender diverse, gender nonconforming, or gender nonspecified,” he said.
To close “the significant knowledge gap that exists in managing headache disorders in sexually- and gender- diverse people,” Dr. Kaiser said that clinical research studies, like patient treatment of diverse populations, “should be conducted with welcoming and affirming practices.”
Dr. Marzouk reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaiser reported financial relationships with Amgen and Lundbeck.
It is “important not to assume that just because someone is a member of the LGBTQ+ community they will need psychiatric or behavioral health support,” said Maya A. Marzouk, PhD, division of behavioral medicine and clinical psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Instead, it is useful not to make any assumptions. There is a potential association between minority status and headache susceptibility, but it is more reasonable initially to address the diagnosis and treatment of headache in LGBTQIA+ patients the same way it is addressed in any other patient, Dr. Marzouk said at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
The acronym to describe individuals with gender identities different from male and female and sexual orientations not limited to heterosexuality has been in almost constant evolution over several decades. An addition sign that accompanies LGBTQIA refers to those who do not identify with any letters in the acronym (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual).
Take steps to normalize the interaction
Although many clinicians have been acclimated to these diverse identifies, not all have risen above preconceptions that become obstacles to effective care, according to Dr. Marzouk. In the context of headache management, Dr. Marzouk emphasized the need to be respectful of the range of gender identities and sexual orientations and to take steps to normalize the interaction.
For example, Dr. Marzouk advised using gender-neutral language at the start of each patient encounter and ask open-ended questions about gender, sexual identify, and pronouns to avoid patient discomfort from misidentification. In turn, the clinicians can establish their own gender identification and preferred pronouns to reinforce the idea that doing so is normal behavior.
This change in approach should be made “for all patients. Do not try to guess who needs them,” she said.
Intake forms and office atmosphere, such as signs and images, should also be welcoming to all patients, she added. Rather than trying to make adjustments for a LGBTQIA+ visit, Dr. Marzouk said a uniform approach helps normalize the experience of LGBTQIA+ patients without singling them out.
Despite the effort to provide an open and welcoming environment, Dr. Marzouk acknowledged that mistakes are difficult to avoid for those with limited experience serving the LGBTQIA+ community. When mistakes are made, she advised clinicians to immediately acknowledge the mistake and ask for guidance from the patient.
The potential offense is making the patient feel “other” or abnormal.
A higher rate of migraine
The interactions that LBGTQIA+ patients have with others outside their community is a possible explanation for the substantial rate of headache as well as headache with comorbid psychiatric disorders in this population.
In a survey published in 2020, the rate of migraine was 19.7% in heterosexual women, 26.7% in lesbians, and 36.8% in bisexual women. Among men, it rose from 9.8% in heterosexuals to 14.8% in gays and then to 22.8% in bisexuals.
Migraine relative to headache is also associated with more mood disorders among LGBTQIA+ individuals. In a study published in 2022, LGBTQIA+ patients with migraine relative to those with headache were more likely to have depression (46.4% vs. 22.3%; P < .001), anxiety (72.1% vs. 51.6%; P < .001), and posttraumatic stress disorder (37.5% vs. 21.4%; P < .001).
A vicious cycle of underdiagnosis and undertreatment
These associations are consistent with minority stress theory, according to Dr. Marzouk. This theory postulates that the associated stress of discrimination, rejection, and microaggressions, such as explicit efforts to make LGBTQIA+ individuals to feel “other,” produces epigenetic changes and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. In turn, this plays a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.
The inconsistency with which minority stress affects LGBTQIA+ patients might be due to relative differences in social support, coping skills, an innate resilience to these effects, Dr. Marzouk explained.
Dr. Marzouk characterized the LGBTQIA+ community as “underserved” for treatment of headache. She suggested that medical mistrust and self-blame among LGBTQIA+ individuals might be factors contributing to a vicious cycle of underdiagnosis and undertreatment. Efforts by the medical community to reach out to the LGBTQIA+ community are appropriate to address an unmet need.
“Individuals with psychiatric comorbidities may experience even more benefit from migraine care,” she said.
Clinical studies should be more inclusive
While agreeing in principle with these remarks, Eric A. Kaiser, MD, PhD, department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that this area would be better advanced if studies routinely included patients with diverse-gender identities and sexual orientations. Speaking about how to organize these studies, Dr. Kaiser suggested that enrollment criteria should explicitly seek these individuals and that these differences should be captured in the baseline characteristics.
“For example, gender options could include man, woman, non-binary, gender diverse, gender nonconforming, or gender nonspecified,” he said.
To close “the significant knowledge gap that exists in managing headache disorders in sexually- and gender- diverse people,” Dr. Kaiser said that clinical research studies, like patient treatment of diverse populations, “should be conducted with welcoming and affirming practices.”
Dr. Marzouk reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaiser reported financial relationships with Amgen and Lundbeck.
FROM THE 2023 SCOTTSDALE HEADACHE SYMPOSIUM
Pharmacist-based strategy places more patients on statins
Visit-based strategy has more modest effect
PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.
, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.
The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.
The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates
The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.
Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.
In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.
In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.
During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).
In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
Visit-based study also randomized
In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,
More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.
For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.
For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).
In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,
The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.
Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge
The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.
“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”
This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.
Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
Visit-based strategy has more modest effect
Visit-based strategy has more modest effect
PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.
, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.
The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.
The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates
The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.
Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.
In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.
In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.
During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).
In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
Visit-based study also randomized
In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,
More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.
For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.
For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).
In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,
The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.
Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge
The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.
“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”
This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.
Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.
, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.
The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.
The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates
The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.
Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.
In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.
In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.
During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).
In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
Visit-based study also randomized
In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,
More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.
For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.
For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).
In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,
The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.
Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge
The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.
“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”
This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.
Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
AT AHA 2023
For AFib cardioversion in obesity, dual energy might be the answer
PHILADELPHIA – , a multicenter randomized trial shows.
When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.
Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.
In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.
No disadvantages seen with dual energy
The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.
The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.
“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.
In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.
200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart
In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.
The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.
On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).
On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).
The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.
Alternatives for obese outlined
Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.
Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.
“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.
Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.
As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.
Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.
PHILADELPHIA – , a multicenter randomized trial shows.
When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.
Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.
In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.
No disadvantages seen with dual energy
The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.
The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.
“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.
In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.
200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart
In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.
The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.
On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).
On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).
The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.
Alternatives for obese outlined
Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.
Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.
“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.
Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.
As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.
Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.
PHILADELPHIA – , a multicenter randomized trial shows.
When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.
Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.
In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.
No disadvantages seen with dual energy
The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.
The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.
“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.
In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.
200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart
In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.
The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.
On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).
On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).
The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.
Alternatives for obese outlined
Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.
Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.
“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.
Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.
As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.
Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.
AT AHA 2023