PEMAZYRE® (pemigatinib) is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s)¹. 

PEMAZYRE can cause serious adverse reactions including Ocular Toxicity (Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment [RPED] and Dry Eye), Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization, and Embryo-Fetal Toxicity. See Additional Important Safety Information Below¹.

Cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, is a rare cancer formed in the bile duct. It is difficult to diagnose due to generalized symptoms patients often experience². As with any serious disease, the initial diagnosis can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for patients and their families. For people living with CCA specifically, the diagnosis process can be very long and arduous, which often means a patient’s condition can reach an advanced stage where the prognosis is poor by the time he or she is diagnosed³.

Scientific advancements, such as biomarker testing, or genomic analysis of a patient’s tissue, have made it possible to better understand a person’s specific cancer. Understanding patients’ tumors at the molecular level may help health care professionals individualize a treatment plan that is specific to each patient. 

As the genomic profile of CCA has become clearer, actionable alterations in the DNA that are amenable to treatment with either existing agents or those in development have come into focus. Certain actionable genomic alterations have been identified in up to 2/3 of patients with the intrahepatic subtype of CCA, although this percentage may vary in actual practice⁴. Specifically, research has found that fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) alterations, which play an important role in the development of cancers like CCA, especially the intrahepatic subtype, is on the rise³. This has prompted recognition of comprehensive genomic testing. Due to the rapid advances in precision medicine for CCA, the NCCN guidelines recommend the use of biomarker testing for advanced CCA⁵. 

The First Targeted Treatment Option for CCA

Though an incredibly useful tool, there is a need for further education about the importance of early biomarker testing amongst the medical community. In one large community-based hospital in California, the implementation of a precision medicine program allowed oncologists and pathologists to standardize all tumor biomarker testing, resulting in an increase in testing⁵. However, there is still much improvement needed. What’s more, scientific advancements in recent years have opened the door to targeted treatment options including Pemazyre® (pemigatinib). Pemazyre was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under accelerated approval in 2020 as the first targeted treatment for adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic CCA with a FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.

“The FDA approval of Pemazyre was and continues to be an encouraging milestone for the CCA community, as patients historically had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, after which relapse rates were high,” said Dr. Sahai.

Pemazyre works by helping to stop the activity of the abnormal FGFR2 protein, which may help reduce the size of CCA tumors or cause them to disappear. Pemazyre’s approval was based on the results of the multicenter, open-label, single arm FIGHT-202 study in 146 previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA1. 

• The efficacy population consisted of 107 patients with disease that had progressed on or after at least 1 prior therapy and who had an FGFR2 fusion or non-fusion rearrangement, as determined by a clinical trial assay (FoundationOne® CDx) performed at a central laboratory.
• The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR). The study found an ORR of 36%, and median DoR of 9.1 months. 
• The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in all patients were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin.

Meet Fred, Battling CCA

Meet Fred – a man living with CCA. After noticing an unusual amount of blood following what he thought was a normal kidney stone, Fred contacted his doctor right away. Unfortunately, it was not clear from his initial symptoms what the problem was. A computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan revealed Fred did indeed have a kidney stone, but it also showed a large mass had formed on his liver, leading to more testing. After several tests, Fred was diagnosed with CCA. Because of the nonspecific symptoms he had been experiencing, his cancer unfortunately had time to grow. Upon advice from his doctor, Fred met with a CCA specialist who quickly ordered biomarker testing, revealing that he had FGFR2-driven CCA. With a molecular understanding of Fred’s specific CCA, his health care team was able to prescribe him Pemazyre. 

“I’m grateful I was able to start receiving treatment for my condition following chemotherapy and continue to see improvements in my condition,” noted Fred. “Though I fight side effects such as great fatigue, dry eye, dry skin, and fingernail discoloration, these innovations in science that lead to treatments like Pemazyre are what continue to give my family and I hope.”

Through his own experience, Fred has become an advocate for encouraging others living with CCA to educate themselves about the disease and the importance of early biomarker testing. “My advice is to be your own health advocate. Take charge of how your diagnosis and treatment plan is formed with your doctor, and don’t be afraid to speak openly with your doctor about the tools, like biomarker testing, that are available,” said Fred. “I feel fortunate that my health care team initiated biomarker testing quickly after my diagnosis, which enabled me to find an appropriate treatment option for my specific condition. I know that’s not always the case for my fellow CCA warriors, so I urge those in the community to take charge of their health conversations.” 

Leverage The Leading Tools at Hand 

Fred’s story, like that of so many other CCA patients, was a long and winding road to an accurate diagnosis; however, once he was diagnosed, biomarker testing allowed for Fred’s health care team to fully understand his condition, which led to a tailored treatment plan with Pemazyre. While the regular use of biomarker testing is on the rise, it’s critical that health care providers continue to institute early biomarker testing as standard practice, as it may provide the opportunity to quickly and accurately determine the best path forward for their patients. 

For more information about treatment with Pemazyre, visit Pemzayre.com and Full Prescribing Information.  

###

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

PEMAZYRE^® is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.

This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Ocular Toxicity
Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment (RPED): PEMAZYRE can cause RPED, which may cause symptoms such as blurred vision, visual floaters, or photopsia. Clinical trials of PEMAZYRE did not conduct routine monitoring including optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect asymptomatic RPED; therefore, the incidence of asymptomatic RPED with PEMAZYRE is unknown.

Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, RPED occurred in 11% of patients, including Grade 3-4 RPED in 1.3%. The median time to first onset of RPED was 56 days. RPED led to dose interruption of PEMAZYRE in 3.1% of patients, and dose reduction and permanent discontinuation in 1.3% and in 0.2% of patients, respectively. RPED resolved or improved to Grade 1 levels in 76% of patients who required dosage modification of PEMAZYRE for RPED.

Perform a comprehensive ophthalmological examination including OCT prior to initiation of PEMAZYRE and every 2 months for the first 6 months and every 3 months thereafter during treatment. For onset of visual symptoms, refer patients for ophthalmologic evaluation urgently, with follow-up every 3 weeks until resolution or discontinuation of PEMAZYRE. Modify the dose or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE as recommended in the prescribing information for PEMAZYRE. 

Dry Eye:  Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, dry eye occurred in 31% of patients, including Grade 3-4 in 1.6% of patients. Treat patients with ocular demulcents as needed.

Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization
PEMAZYRE can cause hyperphosphatemia leading to soft tissue mineralization, cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis. Increases in phosphate levels are a pharmacodynamic effect of PEMAZYRE. Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, hyperphosphatemia was reported in 93% of patients based on laboratory values above the upper limit of normal. The median time to onset of hyperphosphatemia was 8 days (range 1-169). Phosphate lowering therapy was required in 33% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE.

Monitor for hyperphosphatemia and initiate a low phosphate diet when serum phosphate level is >5.5 mg/dL. For serum phosphate levels >7 mg/dL, initiate phosphate lowering therapy and withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE based on duration and severity of hyperphosphatemia as recommended in the prescribing information.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on findings in an animal study and its mechanism of action, PEMAZYRE can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Oral administration of pemigatinib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused fetal malformations, fetal growth retardation, and embryo-fetal death at maternal exposures lower than the human exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the clinical dose of 13.5 mg.

Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.

Adverse Reactions:  Cholangiocarcinoma
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 45% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE (n=146). Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included abdominal pain, pyrexia, cholangitis, pleural effusion, acute kidney injury, cholangitis infective, failure to thrive, hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, small intestinal obstruction, and urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.1% of patients, including failure to thrive, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, sepsis, and pleural effusion.

Permanent discontinuation due to an adverse reaction occurred in 9% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring permanent discontinuation in ≥1% of patients included intestinal obstruction and acute kidney injury.

Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 43% of patients who received PEMAZYRE.  Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in ≥1% of patients included stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, arthralgia, fatigue, abdominal pain, AST increased, asthenia, pyrexia, ALT increased, cholangitis, small intestinal obstruction, alkaline phosphatase increased, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased appetite, dehydration, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypophosphatemia, back pain, pain in extremity, syncope, acute kidney injury, onychomadesis, and hypotension.

Dose reductions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients who received PEMAZYRE.  Adverse reactions requiring dosage reductions in ≥1% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included stomatitis, arthralgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, asthenia, and onychomadesis.

Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in ≤10% of patients included fractures (2.1%). In all patients treated with pemigatinib, 0.5% experienced pathologic fractures (which included patients with and without cholangiocarcinoma [N = 635]). Soft tissue mineralization, including cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis associated with hyperphosphatemia were observed with PEMAZYRE treatment.

Within the first 21-day cycle of PEMAZYRE dosing, serum creatinine increased (mean increase of 0.2 mg/dL) and reached steady state by Day 8, and then decreased during the 7 days off therapy. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.

In cholangiocarcinoma (n=146) the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) were hyperphosphatemia (60%), alopecia (49%), diarrhea (47%), nail toxicity (43%), fatigue (42%), dysgeusia (40%), nausea (40%), constipation (35%), stomatitis (35%), dry eye (35%), dry mouth (34%), decreased appetite (33%), vomiting (27%), arthralgia (25%), abdominal pain (23%), hypophosphatemia (23%), back pain (20%), and dry skin (20%).

Drug Interactions
Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with PEMAZYRE. Reduce the dose of PEMAZYRE if concomitant use with a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers with PEMAZYRE.  
Special Populations
Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.

Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe renal impairment as described in the prescribing information.

Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe hepatic impairment as described in the prescribing information. 

Please see Full Prescribing Information for PEMAZYRE.

Incyte and the Incyte logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
PEMAZYRE  and the PEMAZYRE logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2022, Incyte. MAT-PEM-00414  10/22

^{References:
1.    Pemazyre. Prescribing Information. Incyte Corporation. Accessed August 22, 2022.https://www.pemazyre.com/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf.
2.    Signs and Symptoms of Bile Duct Cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 27, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-by-stage.html.
3.    Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the study of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(5):261-280.
4.    Ross JS, Wang K, Gay L, et al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing. Oncol. 2014;19(3):235-242. 
5.    Cho M, Gholami S, Gui D, et al. Optimizing the diagnosis and biomarker testing for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach. National Library of Medicine. 2022;13(1).} 
 

PEMAZYRE® (pemigatinib) is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s)¹. 

PEMAZYRE can cause serious adverse reactions including Ocular Toxicity (Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment [RPED] and Dry Eye), Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization, and Embryo-Fetal Toxicity. See Additional Important Safety Information Below¹.

Cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, is a rare cancer formed in the bile duct. It is difficult to diagnose due to generalized symptoms patients often experience². As with any serious disease, the initial diagnosis can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for patients and their families. For people living with CCA specifically, the diagnosis process can be very long and arduous, which often means a patient’s condition can reach an advanced stage where the prognosis is poor by the time he or she is diagnosed³.

Scientific advancements, such as biomarker testing, or genomic analysis of a patient’s tissue, have made it possible to better understand a person’s specific cancer. Understanding patients’ tumors at the molecular level may help health care professionals individualize a treatment plan that is specific to each patient. 

As the genomic profile of CCA has become clearer, actionable alterations in the DNA that are amenable to treatment with either existing agents or those in development have come into focus. Certain actionable genomic alterations have been identified in up to 2/3 of patients with the intrahepatic subtype of CCA, although this percentage may vary in actual practice⁴. Specifically, research has found that fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) alterations, which play an important role in the development of cancers like CCA, especially the intrahepatic subtype, is on the rise³. This has prompted recognition of comprehensive genomic testing. Due to the rapid advances in precision medicine for CCA, the NCCN guidelines recommend the use of biomarker testing for advanced CCA⁵. 

The First Targeted Treatment Option for CCA

Though an incredibly useful tool, there is a need for further education about the importance of early biomarker testing amongst the medical community. In one large community-based hospital in California, the implementation of a precision medicine program allowed oncologists and pathologists to standardize all tumor biomarker testing, resulting in an increase in testing⁵. However, there is still much improvement needed. What’s more, scientific advancements in recent years have opened the door to targeted treatment options including Pemazyre® (pemigatinib). Pemazyre was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under accelerated approval in 2020 as the first targeted treatment for adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic CCA with a FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.

“The FDA approval of Pemazyre was and continues to be an encouraging milestone for the CCA community, as patients historically had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, after which relapse rates were high,” said Dr. Sahai.

Pemazyre works by helping to stop the activity of the abnormal FGFR2 protein, which may help reduce the size of CCA tumors or cause them to disappear. Pemazyre’s approval was based on the results of the multicenter, open-label, single arm FIGHT-202 study in 146 previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA1. 

• The efficacy population consisted of 107 patients with disease that had progressed on or after at least 1 prior therapy and who had an FGFR2 fusion or non-fusion rearrangement, as determined by a clinical trial assay (FoundationOne® CDx) performed at a central laboratory.
• The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR). The study found an ORR of 36%, and median DoR of 9.1 months. 
• The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in all patients were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin.

Meet Fred, Battling CCA

Meet Fred – a man living with CCA. After noticing an unusual amount of blood following what he thought was a normal kidney stone, Fred contacted his doctor right away. Unfortunately, it was not clear from his initial symptoms what the problem was. A computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan revealed Fred did indeed have a kidney stone, but it also showed a large mass had formed on his liver, leading to more testing. After several tests, Fred was diagnosed with CCA. Because of the nonspecific symptoms he had been experiencing, his cancer unfortunately had time to grow. Upon advice from his doctor, Fred met with a CCA specialist who quickly ordered biomarker testing, revealing that he had FGFR2-driven CCA. With a molecular understanding of Fred’s specific CCA, his health care team was able to prescribe him Pemazyre. 

“I’m grateful I was able to start receiving treatment for my condition following chemotherapy and continue to see improvements in my condition,” noted Fred. “Though I fight side effects such as great fatigue, dry eye, dry skin, and fingernail discoloration, these innovations in science that lead to treatments like Pemazyre are what continue to give my family and I hope.”

Through his own experience, Fred has become an advocate for encouraging others living with CCA to educate themselves about the disease and the importance of early biomarker testing. “My advice is to be your own health advocate. Take charge of how your diagnosis and treatment plan is formed with your doctor, and don’t be afraid to speak openly with your doctor about the tools, like biomarker testing, that are available,” said Fred. “I feel fortunate that my health care team initiated biomarker testing quickly after my diagnosis, which enabled me to find an appropriate treatment option for my specific condition. I know that’s not always the case for my fellow CCA warriors, so I urge those in the community to take charge of their health conversations.” 

Leverage The Leading Tools at Hand 

Fred’s story, like that of so many other CCA patients, was a long and winding road to an accurate diagnosis; however, once he was diagnosed, biomarker testing allowed for Fred’s health care team to fully understand his condition, which led to a tailored treatment plan with Pemazyre. While the regular use of biomarker testing is on the rise, it’s critical that health care providers continue to institute early biomarker testing as standard practice, as it may provide the opportunity to quickly and accurately determine the best path forward for their patients. 

For more information about treatment with Pemazyre, visit Pemzayre.com and Full Prescribing Information.  

###

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

PEMAZYRE^® is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.

This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Ocular Toxicity
Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment (RPED): PEMAZYRE can cause RPED, which may cause symptoms such as blurred vision, visual floaters, or photopsia. Clinical trials of PEMAZYRE did not conduct routine monitoring including optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect asymptomatic RPED; therefore, the incidence of asymptomatic RPED with PEMAZYRE is unknown.

Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, RPED occurred in 11% of patients, including Grade 3-4 RPED in 1.3%. The median time to first onset of RPED was 56 days. RPED led to dose interruption of PEMAZYRE in 3.1% of patients, and dose reduction and permanent discontinuation in 1.3% and in 0.2% of patients, respectively. RPED resolved or improved to Grade 1 levels in 76% of patients who required dosage modification of PEMAZYRE for RPED.

Perform a comprehensive ophthalmological examination including OCT prior to initiation of PEMAZYRE and every 2 months for the first 6 months and every 3 months thereafter during treatment. For onset of visual symptoms, refer patients for ophthalmologic evaluation urgently, with follow-up every 3 weeks until resolution or discontinuation of PEMAZYRE. Modify the dose or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE as recommended in the prescribing information for PEMAZYRE. 

Dry Eye:  Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, dry eye occurred in 31% of patients, including Grade 3-4 in 1.6% of patients. Treat patients with ocular demulcents as needed.

Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization
PEMAZYRE can cause hyperphosphatemia leading to soft tissue mineralization, cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis. Increases in phosphate levels are a pharmacodynamic effect of PEMAZYRE. Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, hyperphosphatemia was reported in 93% of patients based on laboratory values above the upper limit of normal. The median time to onset of hyperphosphatemia was 8 days (range 1-169). Phosphate lowering therapy was required in 33% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE.

Monitor for hyperphosphatemia and initiate a low phosphate diet when serum phosphate level is >5.5 mg/dL. For serum phosphate levels >7 mg/dL, initiate phosphate lowering therapy and withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE based on duration and severity of hyperphosphatemia as recommended in the prescribing information.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on findings in an animal study and its mechanism of action, PEMAZYRE can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Oral administration of pemigatinib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused fetal malformations, fetal growth retardation, and embryo-fetal death at maternal exposures lower than the human exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the clinical dose of 13.5 mg.

Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.

Adverse Reactions:  Cholangiocarcinoma
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 45% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE (n=146). Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included abdominal pain, pyrexia, cholangitis, pleural effusion, acute kidney injury, cholangitis infective, failure to thrive, hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, small intestinal obstruction, and urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.1% of patients, including failure to thrive, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, sepsis, and pleural effusion.

Permanent discontinuation due to an adverse reaction occurred in 9% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring permanent discontinuation in ≥1% of patients included intestinal obstruction and acute kidney injury.

Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 43% of patients who received PEMAZYRE.  Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in ≥1% of patients included stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, arthralgia, fatigue, abdominal pain, AST increased, asthenia, pyrexia, ALT increased, cholangitis, small intestinal obstruction, alkaline phosphatase increased, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased appetite, dehydration, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypophosphatemia, back pain, pain in extremity, syncope, acute kidney injury, onychomadesis, and hypotension.

Dose reductions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients who received PEMAZYRE.  Adverse reactions requiring dosage reductions in ≥1% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included stomatitis, arthralgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, asthenia, and onychomadesis.

Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in ≤10% of patients included fractures (2.1%). In all patients treated with pemigatinib, 0.5% experienced pathologic fractures (which included patients with and without cholangiocarcinoma [N = 635]). Soft tissue mineralization, including cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis associated with hyperphosphatemia were observed with PEMAZYRE treatment.

Within the first 21-day cycle of PEMAZYRE dosing, serum creatinine increased (mean increase of 0.2 mg/dL) and reached steady state by Day 8, and then decreased during the 7 days off therapy. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.

In cholangiocarcinoma (n=146) the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) were hyperphosphatemia (60%), alopecia (49%), diarrhea (47%), nail toxicity (43%), fatigue (42%), dysgeusia (40%), nausea (40%), constipation (35%), stomatitis (35%), dry eye (35%), dry mouth (34%), decreased appetite (33%), vomiting (27%), arthralgia (25%), abdominal pain (23%), hypophosphatemia (23%), back pain (20%), and dry skin (20%).

Drug Interactions
Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with PEMAZYRE. Reduce the dose of PEMAZYRE if concomitant use with a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers with PEMAZYRE.  
Special Populations
Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.

Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe renal impairment as described in the prescribing information.

Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe hepatic impairment as described in the prescribing information. 

Please see Full Prescribing Information for PEMAZYRE.

Incyte and the Incyte logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
PEMAZYRE  and the PEMAZYRE logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2022, Incyte. MAT-PEM-00414  10/22

^{References:
1.    Pemazyre. Prescribing Information. Incyte Corporation. Accessed August 22, 2022.https://www.pemazyre.com/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf.
2.    Signs and Symptoms of Bile Duct Cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 27, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-by-stage.html.
3.    Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the study of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(5):261-280.
4.    Ross JS, Wang K, Gay L, et al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing. Oncol. 2014;19(3):235-242. 
5.    Cho M, Gholami S, Gui D, et al. Optimizing the diagnosis and biomarker testing for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach. National Library of Medicine. 2022;13(1).} 
 

PEMAZYRE® (pemigatinib) is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s)¹. 

PEMAZYRE can cause serious adverse reactions including Ocular Toxicity (Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment [RPED] and Dry Eye), Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization, and Embryo-Fetal Toxicity. See Additional Important Safety Information Below¹.

Cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, is a rare cancer formed in the bile duct. It is difficult to diagnose due to generalized symptoms patients often experience². As with any serious disease, the initial diagnosis can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for patients and their families. For people living with CCA specifically, the diagnosis process can be very long and arduous, which often means a patient’s condition can reach an advanced stage where the prognosis is poor by the time he or she is diagnosed³.

Scientific advancements, such as biomarker testing, or genomic analysis of a patient’s tissue, have made it possible to better understand a person’s specific cancer. Understanding patients’ tumors at the molecular level may help health care professionals individualize a treatment plan that is specific to each patient. 

As the genomic profile of CCA has become clearer, actionable alterations in the DNA that are amenable to treatment with either existing agents or those in development have come into focus. Certain actionable genomic alterations have been identified in up to 2/3 of patients with the intrahepatic subtype of CCA, although this percentage may vary in actual practice⁴. Specifically, research has found that fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) alterations, which play an important role in the development of cancers like CCA, especially the intrahepatic subtype, is on the rise³. This has prompted recognition of comprehensive genomic testing. Due to the rapid advances in precision medicine for CCA, the NCCN guidelines recommend the use of biomarker testing for advanced CCA⁵. 

The First Targeted Treatment Option for CCA

Though an incredibly useful tool, there is a need for further education about the importance of early biomarker testing amongst the medical community. In one large community-based hospital in California, the implementation of a precision medicine program allowed oncologists and pathologists to standardize all tumor biomarker testing, resulting in an increase in testing⁵. However, there is still much improvement needed. What’s more, scientific advancements in recent years have opened the door to targeted treatment options including Pemazyre® (pemigatinib). Pemazyre was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under accelerated approval in 2020 as the first targeted treatment for adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic CCA with a FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.

“The FDA approval of Pemazyre was and continues to be an encouraging milestone for the CCA community, as patients historically had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, after which relapse rates were high,” said Dr. Sahai.

Pemazyre works by helping to stop the activity of the abnormal FGFR2 protein, which may help reduce the size of CCA tumors or cause them to disappear. Pemazyre’s approval was based on the results of the multicenter, open-label, single arm FIGHT-202 study in 146 previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA1. 

• The efficacy population consisted of 107 patients with disease that had progressed on or after at least 1 prior therapy and who had an FGFR2 fusion or non-fusion rearrangement, as determined by a clinical trial assay (FoundationOne® CDx) performed at a central laboratory.
• The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR). The study found an ORR of 36%, and median DoR of 9.1 months. 
• The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in all patients were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin.

Meet Fred, Battling CCA

Meet Fred – a man living with CCA. After noticing an unusual amount of blood following what he thought was a normal kidney stone, Fred contacted his doctor right away. Unfortunately, it was not clear from his initial symptoms what the problem was. A computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan revealed Fred did indeed have a kidney stone, but it also showed a large mass had formed on his liver, leading to more testing. After several tests, Fred was diagnosed with CCA. Because of the nonspecific symptoms he had been experiencing, his cancer unfortunately had time to grow. Upon advice from his doctor, Fred met with a CCA specialist who quickly ordered biomarker testing, revealing that he had FGFR2-driven CCA. With a molecular understanding of Fred’s specific CCA, his health care team was able to prescribe him Pemazyre. 

“I’m grateful I was able to start receiving treatment for my condition following chemotherapy and continue to see improvements in my condition,” noted Fred. “Though I fight side effects such as great fatigue, dry eye, dry skin, and fingernail discoloration, these innovations in science that lead to treatments like Pemazyre are what continue to give my family and I hope.”

Through his own experience, Fred has become an advocate for encouraging others living with CCA to educate themselves about the disease and the importance of early biomarker testing. “My advice is to be your own health advocate. Take charge of how your diagnosis and treatment plan is formed with your doctor, and don’t be afraid to speak openly with your doctor about the tools, like biomarker testing, that are available,” said Fred. “I feel fortunate that my health care team initiated biomarker testing quickly after my diagnosis, which enabled me to find an appropriate treatment option for my specific condition. I know that’s not always the case for my fellow CCA warriors, so I urge those in the community to take charge of their health conversations.” 

Leverage The Leading Tools at Hand 

Fred’s story, like that of so many other CCA patients, was a long and winding road to an accurate diagnosis; however, once he was diagnosed, biomarker testing allowed for Fred’s health care team to fully understand his condition, which led to a tailored treatment plan with Pemazyre. While the regular use of biomarker testing is on the rise, it’s critical that health care providers continue to institute early biomarker testing as standard practice, as it may provide the opportunity to quickly and accurately determine the best path forward for their patients. 

For more information about treatment with Pemazyre, visit Pemzayre.com and Full Prescribing Information.  

###

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

PEMAZYRE^® is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.

This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Ocular Toxicity
Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment (RPED): PEMAZYRE can cause RPED, which may cause symptoms such as blurred vision, visual floaters, or photopsia. Clinical trials of PEMAZYRE did not conduct routine monitoring including optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect asymptomatic RPED; therefore, the incidence of asymptomatic RPED with PEMAZYRE is unknown.

Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, RPED occurred in 11% of patients, including Grade 3-4 RPED in 1.3%. The median time to first onset of RPED was 56 days. RPED led to dose interruption of PEMAZYRE in 3.1% of patients, and dose reduction and permanent discontinuation in 1.3% and in 0.2% of patients, respectively. RPED resolved or improved to Grade 1 levels in 76% of patients who required dosage modification of PEMAZYRE for RPED.

Perform a comprehensive ophthalmological examination including OCT prior to initiation of PEMAZYRE and every 2 months for the first 6 months and every 3 months thereafter during treatment. For onset of visual symptoms, refer patients for ophthalmologic evaluation urgently, with follow-up every 3 weeks until resolution or discontinuation of PEMAZYRE. Modify the dose or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE as recommended in the prescribing information for PEMAZYRE. 

Dry Eye:  Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, dry eye occurred in 31% of patients, including Grade 3-4 in 1.6% of patients. Treat patients with ocular demulcents as needed.

Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization
PEMAZYRE can cause hyperphosphatemia leading to soft tissue mineralization, cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis. Increases in phosphate levels are a pharmacodynamic effect of PEMAZYRE. Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, hyperphosphatemia was reported in 93% of patients based on laboratory values above the upper limit of normal. The median time to onset of hyperphosphatemia was 8 days (range 1-169). Phosphate lowering therapy was required in 33% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE.

Monitor for hyperphosphatemia and initiate a low phosphate diet when serum phosphate level is >5.5 mg/dL. For serum phosphate levels >7 mg/dL, initiate phosphate lowering therapy and withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE based on duration and severity of hyperphosphatemia as recommended in the prescribing information.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on findings in an animal study and its mechanism of action, PEMAZYRE can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Oral administration of pemigatinib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused fetal malformations, fetal growth retardation, and embryo-fetal death at maternal exposures lower than the human exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the clinical dose of 13.5 mg.

Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.

Adverse Reactions:  Cholangiocarcinoma
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 45% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE (n=146). Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included abdominal pain, pyrexia, cholangitis, pleural effusion, acute kidney injury, cholangitis infective, failure to thrive, hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, small intestinal obstruction, and urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.1% of patients, including failure to thrive, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, sepsis, and pleural effusion.

Permanent discontinuation due to an adverse reaction occurred in 9% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring permanent discontinuation in ≥1% of patients included intestinal obstruction and acute kidney injury.

Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 43% of patients who received PEMAZYRE.  Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in ≥1% of patients included stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, arthralgia, fatigue, abdominal pain, AST increased, asthenia, pyrexia, ALT increased, cholangitis, small intestinal obstruction, alkaline phosphatase increased, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased appetite, dehydration, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypophosphatemia, back pain, pain in extremity, syncope, acute kidney injury, onychomadesis, and hypotension.

Dose reductions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients who received PEMAZYRE.  Adverse reactions requiring dosage reductions in ≥1% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included stomatitis, arthralgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, asthenia, and onychomadesis.

Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in ≤10% of patients included fractures (2.1%). In all patients treated with pemigatinib, 0.5% experienced pathologic fractures (which included patients with and without cholangiocarcinoma [N = 635]). Soft tissue mineralization, including cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis associated with hyperphosphatemia were observed with PEMAZYRE treatment.

Within the first 21-day cycle of PEMAZYRE dosing, serum creatinine increased (mean increase of 0.2 mg/dL) and reached steady state by Day 8, and then decreased during the 7 days off therapy. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.

In cholangiocarcinoma (n=146) the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) were hyperphosphatemia (60%), alopecia (49%), diarrhea (47%), nail toxicity (43%), fatigue (42%), dysgeusia (40%), nausea (40%), constipation (35%), stomatitis (35%), dry eye (35%), dry mouth (34%), decreased appetite (33%), vomiting (27%), arthralgia (25%), abdominal pain (23%), hypophosphatemia (23%), back pain (20%), and dry skin (20%).

Drug Interactions
Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with PEMAZYRE. Reduce the dose of PEMAZYRE if concomitant use with a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers with PEMAZYRE.  
Special Populations
Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.

Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe renal impairment as described in the prescribing information.

Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe hepatic impairment as described in the prescribing information. 

Please see Full Prescribing Information for PEMAZYRE.

Incyte and the Incyte logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
PEMAZYRE  and the PEMAZYRE logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2022, Incyte. MAT-PEM-00414  10/22

^{References:
1.    Pemazyre. Prescribing Information. Incyte Corporation. Accessed August 22, 2022.https://www.pemazyre.com/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf.
2.    Signs and Symptoms of Bile Duct Cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 27, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-by-stage.html.
3.    Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the study of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(5):261-280.
4.    Ross JS, Wang K, Gay L, et al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing. Oncol. 2014;19(3):235-242. 
5.    Cho M, Gholami S, Gui D, et al. Optimizing the diagnosis and biomarker testing for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach. National Library of Medicine. 2022;13(1).} 
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the indication for Pfizer’s oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor for atopic dermatitis (AD), abrocitinib (Cibinqo), to include adolescents aged 12 through 17 years.

Abrocitinib, taken once daily, previously was approved only for treating adults aged 18 and older.

It joins upadacitinib (Rinvoq), previously the only oral JAK inhibitor to be approved for use by adolescents aged 12 through 17 with refractory moderate to severe AD.

The indication has been expanded for teens whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics, or those for whom use of those drugs is not advised.

Prescribing information was updated to reflect data from JADE TEEN, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that supported the indication for adolescents. That trial evaluated both the 100-mg and 200-mg doses of abrocitinib in comparison with placebo in 285 adolescents aged 12-18 who had moderate to severe AD and who were also receiving background therapy with topical medications.

The most common toxicities that were reported in at least 1% of patients treated with abrocitinib for up to 16 weeks included nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache.

Efficacy measures included improvements in itch, skin clearance, and disease severity using the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), according to the Pfizer statement announcing the expanded approval.

Select JADE TEEN findings include the following:

• IGA response rate of 0 or 1 at week 12: 39% with abrocitinib 100 mg; 46% with abrocitinib 200 mg; and 24% with placebo.
• EASI-75 response rate at week 12: 64%, 71%, and 41%, respectively.
• Proportion of participants achieving PP-NRS with at least a 4-point decrease from baseline at week 2: 13%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.

Data included in the prescribing information now encompass five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and a long-term extension study with more than 1,600 patients treated with abrocitinib, according to the statement from Pfizer.

In a 2021 story, when JADE TEEN trial results were presented, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization that he welcomed oral JAKs as a weapon against atopic dermatitis.

He noted that moderate to severe AD can have a tremendous impact on adolescents. “Traditionally, we have treated it with intermittent topical corticosteroids, but this has left a significant percentage of patients without long-term disease control,” he said.

Abrocitinib is not recommended for use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic immunomodulators, or other immunosuppressants.

AD, one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, affects approximately 5%-10% of adults in the United States and approximately 11% of children. About one in three adults and one in three children and adolescents aged 17 and younger with AD have moderate to severe disease.

JAK inhibition is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin.

Prescribing information includes a warning that use of abrocitinib should be avoided by patients with an active, serious infection, including localized infections. A boxed warning is included in the labels of JAK inhibitors regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.

Treatment risks and benefits should be carefully considered for patients with chronic or recurrent infections or those who have lived in or traveled in areas of endemic tuberculosis or endemic mycoses, the information states.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the indication for Pfizer’s oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor for atopic dermatitis (AD), abrocitinib (Cibinqo), to include adolescents aged 12 through 17 years.

Abrocitinib, taken once daily, previously was approved only for treating adults aged 18 and older.

It joins upadacitinib (Rinvoq), previously the only oral JAK inhibitor to be approved for use by adolescents aged 12 through 17 with refractory moderate to severe AD.

The indication has been expanded for teens whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics, or those for whom use of those drugs is not advised.

Prescribing information was updated to reflect data from JADE TEEN, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that supported the indication for adolescents. That trial evaluated both the 100-mg and 200-mg doses of abrocitinib in comparison with placebo in 285 adolescents aged 12-18 who had moderate to severe AD and who were also receiving background therapy with topical medications.

The most common toxicities that were reported in at least 1% of patients treated with abrocitinib for up to 16 weeks included nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache.

Efficacy measures included improvements in itch, skin clearance, and disease severity using the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), according to the Pfizer statement announcing the expanded approval.

Select JADE TEEN findings include the following:

• IGA response rate of 0 or 1 at week 12: 39% with abrocitinib 100 mg; 46% with abrocitinib 200 mg; and 24% with placebo.
• EASI-75 response rate at week 12: 64%, 71%, and 41%, respectively.
• Proportion of participants achieving PP-NRS with at least a 4-point decrease from baseline at week 2: 13%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.

Data included in the prescribing information now encompass five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and a long-term extension study with more than 1,600 patients treated with abrocitinib, according to the statement from Pfizer.

In a 2021 story, when JADE TEEN trial results were presented, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization that he welcomed oral JAKs as a weapon against atopic dermatitis.

He noted that moderate to severe AD can have a tremendous impact on adolescents. “Traditionally, we have treated it with intermittent topical corticosteroids, but this has left a significant percentage of patients without long-term disease control,” he said.

Abrocitinib is not recommended for use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic immunomodulators, or other immunosuppressants.

AD, one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, affects approximately 5%-10% of adults in the United States and approximately 11% of children. About one in three adults and one in three children and adolescents aged 17 and younger with AD have moderate to severe disease.

JAK inhibition is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin.

Prescribing information includes a warning that use of abrocitinib should be avoided by patients with an active, serious infection, including localized infections. A boxed warning is included in the labels of JAK inhibitors regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.

Treatment risks and benefits should be carefully considered for patients with chronic or recurrent infections or those who have lived in or traveled in areas of endemic tuberculosis or endemic mycoses, the information states.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the indication for Pfizer’s oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor for atopic dermatitis (AD), abrocitinib (Cibinqo), to include adolescents aged 12 through 17 years.

Abrocitinib, taken once daily, previously was approved only for treating adults aged 18 and older.

It joins upadacitinib (Rinvoq), previously the only oral JAK inhibitor to be approved for use by adolescents aged 12 through 17 with refractory moderate to severe AD.

The indication has been expanded for teens whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics, or those for whom use of those drugs is not advised.

Prescribing information was updated to reflect data from JADE TEEN, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that supported the indication for adolescents. That trial evaluated both the 100-mg and 200-mg doses of abrocitinib in comparison with placebo in 285 adolescents aged 12-18 who had moderate to severe AD and who were also receiving background therapy with topical medications.

The most common toxicities that were reported in at least 1% of patients treated with abrocitinib for up to 16 weeks included nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache.

Efficacy measures included improvements in itch, skin clearance, and disease severity using the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), according to the Pfizer statement announcing the expanded approval.

Select JADE TEEN findings include the following:

• IGA response rate of 0 or 1 at week 12: 39% with abrocitinib 100 mg; 46% with abrocitinib 200 mg; and 24% with placebo.
• EASI-75 response rate at week 12: 64%, 71%, and 41%, respectively.
• Proportion of participants achieving PP-NRS with at least a 4-point decrease from baseline at week 2: 13%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.

Data included in the prescribing information now encompass five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and a long-term extension study with more than 1,600 patients treated with abrocitinib, according to the statement from Pfizer.

In a 2021 story, when JADE TEEN trial results were presented, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization that he welcomed oral JAKs as a weapon against atopic dermatitis.

He noted that moderate to severe AD can have a tremendous impact on adolescents. “Traditionally, we have treated it with intermittent topical corticosteroids, but this has left a significant percentage of patients without long-term disease control,” he said.

Abrocitinib is not recommended for use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic immunomodulators, or other immunosuppressants.

AD, one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, affects approximately 5%-10% of adults in the United States and approximately 11% of children. About one in three adults and one in three children and adolescents aged 17 and younger with AD have moderate to severe disease.

JAK inhibition is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin.

Prescribing information includes a warning that use of abrocitinib should be avoided by patients with an active, serious infection, including localized infections. A boxed warning is included in the labels of JAK inhibitors regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.

Treatment risks and benefits should be carefully considered for patients with chronic or recurrent infections or those who have lived in or traveled in areas of endemic tuberculosis or endemic mycoses, the information states.

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

Adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals – two established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett esophagus (BE) – varies widely by individual endoscopist and center, an analysis of U.S. registry data shows.

“As the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry represents the ‘best-case scenario’ for adherence, since sites and endoscopists enrolled in this quality registry are aware that their practices are being monitored, these results indicate that there is still room for improvement and better consistency,” the researchers write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Quality care in BE, which is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), includes adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol for sampling the BE segment (four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) and to a surveillance interval of 3-5 years for patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).

Previous studies have found poor adherence to these two QIs, but those studies only provided overall estimates, and individual endoscopists or different sites were not taken into consideration.

Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues say their study is the first to highlight variation in adherence to these measures at the center and endoscopist levels.

The study is also the first U.S. population–based study to report the dysplasia detection rate (DDR), which is a proposed quality indicator. The findings on this metric also demonstrate marked variability across endoscopists and sites.
 

Study details

Using the nationwide GIQuIC registry, the researchers evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval advice from January 2018 to May 2021.

Among 255 practices with 1,195 endoscopists who performed 20,155 upper endoscopies for suspected or established BE, overall adherence to the Seattle protocol was 86%, which is considerably higher than the 51% reported in a study conducted from 2002 to 2007, Dr. Kolb and colleagues note.

When researchers looked specifically at 572 endoscopists for whom there were at least 10 endoscopy records in the registry, they found high variability in adherence to the Seattle protocol (median, 93.8%; interquartile range, 18.9%).

Adherence to the Seattle protocol was also variable among 153 practices for which there were at least 20 endoscopy records (median, 90%; IQR, 20.1%).

Of the 12,100 upper endoscopies with documented NDBE, 8,517 (70.4%) had a guideline-concordant–recommended surveillance interval of 3-5 years, with variability at both the endoscopist (median, 82.4%; IQR, 36.3%) and site level (median, 77.2%; IQR, 28.9%).

Endoscopist and site adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance guidance generally rose along with volume of upper endoscopies performed.

The overall DDR was 3.1%; it varied among endoscopists and sites (mean, 3.3% for both).

The investigators note that the 95% confidence intervals for each provider for DDR were “highly variable” and ranged from –20% to 119.3%. Notably, increasing upper endoscopy volume had an inconsistent effect on adherence rates and DDR by endoscopists and sites.

The investigators saw no correlation between overall DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among sites and only weak but statistically significant negative correlation between DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among individual endoscopists.
 

Practical approaches to improvement

The researchers say their observations from the GIQuIC database “most accurately represent the real-world experience in Barrett’s endoscopy.”

The results can serve as a “benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE,” they say.

Improving adherence to key QI measures and ensuring more consistent clinical behavior across practice groups and endoscopists are “critical first steps” to ensure high-quality BE care, Dr. Kolb and colleagues say.

To that end, they encourage professional societies to emphasize these metrics to their members and to streamline the reporting systems for QIs within the electronic health records used across various practice settings.

Avenues to improve examination quality may include educational interventions, such as online learning platforms that teach dysplasia detection or that highlight best practices, they add. These educational tools should be easy to use and should emphasize quality improvement measures.

“Future efforts are warranted to identify and extinguish predictors of this variability and to determine whether these interventions can improve DDR and adherence rates to QIs among endoscopists doing these examinations with the goal to improve EAC outcomes,” they conclude.

The study had no financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals – two established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett esophagus (BE) – varies widely by individual endoscopist and center, an analysis of U.S. registry data shows.

“As the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry represents the ‘best-case scenario’ for adherence, since sites and endoscopists enrolled in this quality registry are aware that their practices are being monitored, these results indicate that there is still room for improvement and better consistency,” the researchers write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Quality care in BE, which is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), includes adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol for sampling the BE segment (four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) and to a surveillance interval of 3-5 years for patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).

Previous studies have found poor adherence to these two QIs, but those studies only provided overall estimates, and individual endoscopists or different sites were not taken into consideration.

Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues say their study is the first to highlight variation in adherence to these measures at the center and endoscopist levels.

The study is also the first U.S. population–based study to report the dysplasia detection rate (DDR), which is a proposed quality indicator. The findings on this metric also demonstrate marked variability across endoscopists and sites.
 

Study details

Using the nationwide GIQuIC registry, the researchers evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval advice from January 2018 to May 2021.

Among 255 practices with 1,195 endoscopists who performed 20,155 upper endoscopies for suspected or established BE, overall adherence to the Seattle protocol was 86%, which is considerably higher than the 51% reported in a study conducted from 2002 to 2007, Dr. Kolb and colleagues note.

When researchers looked specifically at 572 endoscopists for whom there were at least 10 endoscopy records in the registry, they found high variability in adherence to the Seattle protocol (median, 93.8%; interquartile range, 18.9%).

Adherence to the Seattle protocol was also variable among 153 practices for which there were at least 20 endoscopy records (median, 90%; IQR, 20.1%).

Of the 12,100 upper endoscopies with documented NDBE, 8,517 (70.4%) had a guideline-concordant–recommended surveillance interval of 3-5 years, with variability at both the endoscopist (median, 82.4%; IQR, 36.3%) and site level (median, 77.2%; IQR, 28.9%).

Endoscopist and site adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance guidance generally rose along with volume of upper endoscopies performed.

The overall DDR was 3.1%; it varied among endoscopists and sites (mean, 3.3% for both).

The investigators note that the 95% confidence intervals for each provider for DDR were “highly variable” and ranged from –20% to 119.3%. Notably, increasing upper endoscopy volume had an inconsistent effect on adherence rates and DDR by endoscopists and sites.

The investigators saw no correlation between overall DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among sites and only weak but statistically significant negative correlation between DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among individual endoscopists.
 

Practical approaches to improvement

The researchers say their observations from the GIQuIC database “most accurately represent the real-world experience in Barrett’s endoscopy.”

The results can serve as a “benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE,” they say.

Improving adherence to key QI measures and ensuring more consistent clinical behavior across practice groups and endoscopists are “critical first steps” to ensure high-quality BE care, Dr. Kolb and colleagues say.

To that end, they encourage professional societies to emphasize these metrics to their members and to streamline the reporting systems for QIs within the electronic health records used across various practice settings.

Avenues to improve examination quality may include educational interventions, such as online learning platforms that teach dysplasia detection or that highlight best practices, they add. These educational tools should be easy to use and should emphasize quality improvement measures.

“Future efforts are warranted to identify and extinguish predictors of this variability and to determine whether these interventions can improve DDR and adherence rates to QIs among endoscopists doing these examinations with the goal to improve EAC outcomes,” they conclude.

The study had no financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals – two established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett esophagus (BE) – varies widely by individual endoscopist and center, an analysis of U.S. registry data shows.

“As the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry represents the ‘best-case scenario’ for adherence, since sites and endoscopists enrolled in this quality registry are aware that their practices are being monitored, these results indicate that there is still room for improvement and better consistency,” the researchers write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Quality care in BE, which is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), includes adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol for sampling the BE segment (four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) and to a surveillance interval of 3-5 years for patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).

Previous studies have found poor adherence to these two QIs, but those studies only provided overall estimates, and individual endoscopists or different sites were not taken into consideration.

Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues say their study is the first to highlight variation in adherence to these measures at the center and endoscopist levels.

The study is also the first U.S. population–based study to report the dysplasia detection rate (DDR), which is a proposed quality indicator. The findings on this metric also demonstrate marked variability across endoscopists and sites.
 

Study details

Using the nationwide GIQuIC registry, the researchers evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval advice from January 2018 to May 2021.

Among 255 practices with 1,195 endoscopists who performed 20,155 upper endoscopies for suspected or established BE, overall adherence to the Seattle protocol was 86%, which is considerably higher than the 51% reported in a study conducted from 2002 to 2007, Dr. Kolb and colleagues note.

When researchers looked specifically at 572 endoscopists for whom there were at least 10 endoscopy records in the registry, they found high variability in adherence to the Seattle protocol (median, 93.8%; interquartile range, 18.9%).

Adherence to the Seattle protocol was also variable among 153 practices for which there were at least 20 endoscopy records (median, 90%; IQR, 20.1%).

Of the 12,100 upper endoscopies with documented NDBE, 8,517 (70.4%) had a guideline-concordant–recommended surveillance interval of 3-5 years, with variability at both the endoscopist (median, 82.4%; IQR, 36.3%) and site level (median, 77.2%; IQR, 28.9%).

Endoscopist and site adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance guidance generally rose along with volume of upper endoscopies performed.

The overall DDR was 3.1%; it varied among endoscopists and sites (mean, 3.3% for both).

The investigators note that the 95% confidence intervals for each provider for DDR were “highly variable” and ranged from –20% to 119.3%. Notably, increasing upper endoscopy volume had an inconsistent effect on adherence rates and DDR by endoscopists and sites.

The investigators saw no correlation between overall DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among sites and only weak but statistically significant negative correlation between DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among individual endoscopists.
 

Practical approaches to improvement

The researchers say their observations from the GIQuIC database “most accurately represent the real-world experience in Barrett’s endoscopy.”

The results can serve as a “benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE,” they say.

Improving adherence to key QI measures and ensuring more consistent clinical behavior across practice groups and endoscopists are “critical first steps” to ensure high-quality BE care, Dr. Kolb and colleagues say.

To that end, they encourage professional societies to emphasize these metrics to their members and to streamline the reporting systems for QIs within the electronic health records used across various practice settings.

Avenues to improve examination quality may include educational interventions, such as online learning platforms that teach dysplasia detection or that highlight best practices, they add. These educational tools should be easy to use and should emphasize quality improvement measures.

“Future efforts are warranted to identify and extinguish predictors of this variability and to determine whether these interventions can improve DDR and adherence rates to QIs among endoscopists doing these examinations with the goal to improve EAC outcomes,” they conclude.

The study had no financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain volume disparities among young children of different races may be attributable to adverse childhood experiences related to socioeconomic conditions and structural racism, new research suggests.

Investigators from the Belmont, Mass.–based McLean Hospital, an affiliate of Mass General Brigham, found that 9- and 10-year-old children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds have subtle neurobiological differences in gray matter volume in certain brain regions associated with trauma and stress.

Lead investigator Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, believes this research shows evidence that “structural racism” – broad socioeconomic disadvantages that lead to poverty and emotional trauma – may affect brain structures and growth and ultimately may lead to psychiatric illness.

“For clinicians, I think the take-home message is that we really need to be more aware about the ways in which the disproportionate burden of stress might impact some groups,” Dr. Harnett told this news organization.

“This in turn can affect the way they respond either to later stress or maybe even treatment outcomes.” He added that other brain regions and compensatory mechanisms are likely to be involved, and more work needs to explore these connections.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Toxic stressor’

Dr. Harnett and colleagues used MRI and survey data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study involving over 12,000 children from 21 sites across the United States.

Participating children provided information about emotional and physical conflicts in the household. The ABCD study also surveyed the parents about their race and ethnicity, parental education, employment, and family income. Another factor in the analysis was neighborhood disadvantage, based on the Area Deprivation Index utilizing 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing.

Comparing brain MRI findings from approximately 7,300 White children and 1,800 Black children in the ABCD study, Dr. Harnett’s group found that Black children had lower gray matter volume in the amygdala, hippocampus, and other subregions of the prefrontal cortex.

Experience of adversity was the “sole factor” explaining brain volume differences, with household income being the predominant factor.

Compared with White children, Black children were three times less likely to have parents who were currently employed. In addition, White parents were more likely than Black parents to have higher education at 75.2% versus 40.6%. Black families had significantly lower household income than White families and experienced more family conflict, material hardship, neighborhood disadvantage, and traumatic events.

The researchers analyzed race-related differences in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and the relationship with adversity and found that Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and that symptom severity was “further predicted by adversity.”

“Taken together, early-life adversity may act as a toxic stressor that disproportionately impacts Black children as a result of their significantly greater exposure to adversity and contributes to differential neural development of key threat-processing regions,” the investigators write.

“These parts of the brain are involved in what we typically call threat learning,” Dr. Harnett explained. “Threat learning is basically learning to recognize potential dangers in our environment and selecting behaviors to keep us safe, whether we’re going to run away from a danger or face it head on. When you have chronic exposure to things that can be dangerous or can make you feel unsafe, that might have an impact on how these brain regions develop, with potential implications for how these regions function later on in life.”
 

A consequence of toxic stress

This study is part of a growing body of work on the influence of “toxic stress” and other forms of PTSD on brain architecture. The authors note that prolonged exposure to adverse experiences leads to excessive activation of stress-response systems and accumulation of stress hormones. This disrupts immune and metabolic regulatory systems that influence the developing structures of the brain.

The study helps to contradict the “pseudoscientific falsehood” of biologic race-related differences in brain volume, instead emphasizing the role of adversity brought on by structural racism, the authors add.

In an accompanying editor’s note, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ned H. Kalin, MD, called childhood adversity, maltreatment, and stress, “significant risk factors for the development of psychopathology.”

These findings are “critically important, as they speak to the need for psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” he stated in a news release.
 

Social construct?

Joan Luby, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said she and her coauthor “really appreciate the study and think the findings are overall very consistent with the emerging literature, increasing the confidence [in the findings].”

Dr. Luby, a professor of child psychiatry and director of the Early Emotional Development Program, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that she “takes issue” with the fact that the study “makes inferences regarding race, when we think those inferences aren’t well justified, are misinterpretations, and could be misleading.”

Race is a “social construct” and there are many sources of adversity that the authors didn’t measure in the study and are likely the source of any remaining variance they found, including experiences of structural racism and discrimination,” said Dr. Luby, who was not involved in the study.

“How people look doesn’t have any bearing on their inherent biological characteristics, and more [needs to be studied] on how they experience the psychosocial environment and how the psychosocial environment rejects or reacts to them.”

These psychosocial issues “have to be taken into account and measured in a very comprehensive way,” she added.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners. Dr. Harnett reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Luby receives royalties from Guilford Press. Her coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain volume disparities among young children of different races may be attributable to adverse childhood experiences related to socioeconomic conditions and structural racism, new research suggests.

Investigators from the Belmont, Mass.–based McLean Hospital, an affiliate of Mass General Brigham, found that 9- and 10-year-old children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds have subtle neurobiological differences in gray matter volume in certain brain regions associated with trauma and stress.

Lead investigator Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, believes this research shows evidence that “structural racism” – broad socioeconomic disadvantages that lead to poverty and emotional trauma – may affect brain structures and growth and ultimately may lead to psychiatric illness.

“For clinicians, I think the take-home message is that we really need to be more aware about the ways in which the disproportionate burden of stress might impact some groups,” Dr. Harnett told this news organization.

“This in turn can affect the way they respond either to later stress or maybe even treatment outcomes.” He added that other brain regions and compensatory mechanisms are likely to be involved, and more work needs to explore these connections.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Toxic stressor’

Dr. Harnett and colleagues used MRI and survey data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study involving over 12,000 children from 21 sites across the United States.

Participating children provided information about emotional and physical conflicts in the household. The ABCD study also surveyed the parents about their race and ethnicity, parental education, employment, and family income. Another factor in the analysis was neighborhood disadvantage, based on the Area Deprivation Index utilizing 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing.

Comparing brain MRI findings from approximately 7,300 White children and 1,800 Black children in the ABCD study, Dr. Harnett’s group found that Black children had lower gray matter volume in the amygdala, hippocampus, and other subregions of the prefrontal cortex.

Experience of adversity was the “sole factor” explaining brain volume differences, with household income being the predominant factor.

Compared with White children, Black children were three times less likely to have parents who were currently employed. In addition, White parents were more likely than Black parents to have higher education at 75.2% versus 40.6%. Black families had significantly lower household income than White families and experienced more family conflict, material hardship, neighborhood disadvantage, and traumatic events.

The researchers analyzed race-related differences in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and the relationship with adversity and found that Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and that symptom severity was “further predicted by adversity.”

“Taken together, early-life adversity may act as a toxic stressor that disproportionately impacts Black children as a result of their significantly greater exposure to adversity and contributes to differential neural development of key threat-processing regions,” the investigators write.

“These parts of the brain are involved in what we typically call threat learning,” Dr. Harnett explained. “Threat learning is basically learning to recognize potential dangers in our environment and selecting behaviors to keep us safe, whether we’re going to run away from a danger or face it head on. When you have chronic exposure to things that can be dangerous or can make you feel unsafe, that might have an impact on how these brain regions develop, with potential implications for how these regions function later on in life.”
 

A consequence of toxic stress

This study is part of a growing body of work on the influence of “toxic stress” and other forms of PTSD on brain architecture. The authors note that prolonged exposure to adverse experiences leads to excessive activation of stress-response systems and accumulation of stress hormones. This disrupts immune and metabolic regulatory systems that influence the developing structures of the brain.

The study helps to contradict the “pseudoscientific falsehood” of biologic race-related differences in brain volume, instead emphasizing the role of adversity brought on by structural racism, the authors add.

In an accompanying editor’s note, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ned H. Kalin, MD, called childhood adversity, maltreatment, and stress, “significant risk factors for the development of psychopathology.”

These findings are “critically important, as they speak to the need for psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” he stated in a news release.
 

Social construct?

Joan Luby, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said she and her coauthor “really appreciate the study and think the findings are overall very consistent with the emerging literature, increasing the confidence [in the findings].”

Dr. Luby, a professor of child psychiatry and director of the Early Emotional Development Program, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that she “takes issue” with the fact that the study “makes inferences regarding race, when we think those inferences aren’t well justified, are misinterpretations, and could be misleading.”

Race is a “social construct” and there are many sources of adversity that the authors didn’t measure in the study and are likely the source of any remaining variance they found, including experiences of structural racism and discrimination,” said Dr. Luby, who was not involved in the study.

“How people look doesn’t have any bearing on their inherent biological characteristics, and more [needs to be studied] on how they experience the psychosocial environment and how the psychosocial environment rejects or reacts to them.”

These psychosocial issues “have to be taken into account and measured in a very comprehensive way,” she added.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners. Dr. Harnett reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Luby receives royalties from Guilford Press. Her coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain volume disparities among young children of different races may be attributable to adverse childhood experiences related to socioeconomic conditions and structural racism, new research suggests.

Investigators from the Belmont, Mass.–based McLean Hospital, an affiliate of Mass General Brigham, found that 9- and 10-year-old children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds have subtle neurobiological differences in gray matter volume in certain brain regions associated with trauma and stress.

Lead investigator Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, believes this research shows evidence that “structural racism” – broad socioeconomic disadvantages that lead to poverty and emotional trauma – may affect brain structures and growth and ultimately may lead to psychiatric illness.

“For clinicians, I think the take-home message is that we really need to be more aware about the ways in which the disproportionate burden of stress might impact some groups,” Dr. Harnett told this news organization.

“This in turn can affect the way they respond either to later stress or maybe even treatment outcomes.” He added that other brain regions and compensatory mechanisms are likely to be involved, and more work needs to explore these connections.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Toxic stressor’

Dr. Harnett and colleagues used MRI and survey data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study involving over 12,000 children from 21 sites across the United States.

Participating children provided information about emotional and physical conflicts in the household. The ABCD study also surveyed the parents about their race and ethnicity, parental education, employment, and family income. Another factor in the analysis was neighborhood disadvantage, based on the Area Deprivation Index utilizing 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing.

Comparing brain MRI findings from approximately 7,300 White children and 1,800 Black children in the ABCD study, Dr. Harnett’s group found that Black children had lower gray matter volume in the amygdala, hippocampus, and other subregions of the prefrontal cortex.

Experience of adversity was the “sole factor” explaining brain volume differences, with household income being the predominant factor.

Compared with White children, Black children were three times less likely to have parents who were currently employed. In addition, White parents were more likely than Black parents to have higher education at 75.2% versus 40.6%. Black families had significantly lower household income than White families and experienced more family conflict, material hardship, neighborhood disadvantage, and traumatic events.

The researchers analyzed race-related differences in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and the relationship with adversity and found that Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and that symptom severity was “further predicted by adversity.”

“Taken together, early-life adversity may act as a toxic stressor that disproportionately impacts Black children as a result of their significantly greater exposure to adversity and contributes to differential neural development of key threat-processing regions,” the investigators write.

“These parts of the brain are involved in what we typically call threat learning,” Dr. Harnett explained. “Threat learning is basically learning to recognize potential dangers in our environment and selecting behaviors to keep us safe, whether we’re going to run away from a danger or face it head on. When you have chronic exposure to things that can be dangerous or can make you feel unsafe, that might have an impact on how these brain regions develop, with potential implications for how these regions function later on in life.”
 

A consequence of toxic stress

This study is part of a growing body of work on the influence of “toxic stress” and other forms of PTSD on brain architecture. The authors note that prolonged exposure to adverse experiences leads to excessive activation of stress-response systems and accumulation of stress hormones. This disrupts immune and metabolic regulatory systems that influence the developing structures of the brain.

The study helps to contradict the “pseudoscientific falsehood” of biologic race-related differences in brain volume, instead emphasizing the role of adversity brought on by structural racism, the authors add.

In an accompanying editor’s note, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ned H. Kalin, MD, called childhood adversity, maltreatment, and stress, “significant risk factors for the development of psychopathology.”

These findings are “critically important, as they speak to the need for psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” he stated in a news release.
 

Social construct?

Joan Luby, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said she and her coauthor “really appreciate the study and think the findings are overall very consistent with the emerging literature, increasing the confidence [in the findings].”

Dr. Luby, a professor of child psychiatry and director of the Early Emotional Development Program, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that she “takes issue” with the fact that the study “makes inferences regarding race, when we think those inferences aren’t well justified, are misinterpretations, and could be misleading.”

Race is a “social construct” and there are many sources of adversity that the authors didn’t measure in the study and are likely the source of any remaining variance they found, including experiences of structural racism and discrimination,” said Dr. Luby, who was not involved in the study.

“How people look doesn’t have any bearing on their inherent biological characteristics, and more [needs to be studied] on how they experience the psychosocial environment and how the psychosocial environment rejects or reacts to them.”

These psychosocial issues “have to be taken into account and measured in a very comprehensive way,” she added.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners. Dr. Harnett reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Luby receives royalties from Guilford Press. Her coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia frequently coexists with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with cirrhosis but doesn’t correlate with other decompensating events, according to a new study involving U.S. veterans.

The overlap between dementia and HE was also independent of alcohol use, brain injury, age, and other metabolic risk factors.

“The aging of patients with cirrhosis leads us to encounter several individuals who may be prone to both of these diseases,” senior author Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center and GI section of the Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System in Richmond, said in an interview.

“Given the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and alcohol, consider excluding cirrhosis in your patient [for] whom the presumptive diagnosis is dementia, since they could have concomitant HE,” he said.

“On the flip side, in those with HE who have predominant long-term memory issues and persistent cognitive changes, consider consulting a neuropsychiatrist or neurologist to ensure there is a resolution of the underlying disease process,” Dr. Bajaj added.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing associations

HE is a common decompensating event in patients with cirrhosis. Because of the aging population of patients with cirrhosis, however, it’s important to differentiate HE from nonhepatic etiologies of cognitive impairment, such as dementia, the authors note.

Using data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues identified veterans with cirrhosis who received VA care between October 2019 and September 2021 and compared baseline characteristics between the cohorts based on the presence or absence of dementia. The research team then evaluated factors associated with having a diagnosis of dementia, adjusting for demographics, comorbid illnesses, cirrhosis etiology, and cirrhosis complications.

Investigators identified 71,522 veterans with diagnostic codes for cirrhosis who were engaged in VA care in 2019. They were mostly men (96.2%) and had a median age of 66. The most common etiologies of cirrhosis were alcohol and hepatitis C, followed by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The group also included veterans with predominantly compensated cirrhosis and a median MELD-Na score of 9. The MELD-Na score gauges the severity of chronic liver disease using values such as serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio for prothrombin time and sodium to predict survival.

Among those with cirrhosis, 5,647 (7.9%) also had dementia diagnosis codes. This rate is higher than the prevalence of dementia in the general population and equivalent to the rate of dementia in veterans without cirrhosis who are older than 65, the authors note.

In general, veterans with dementia tended to be older, to be White, to live in an urban area, and to have higher MELD-Na scores, and they were more frequently diagnosed with alcohol-related cirrhosis, alcohol and tobacco use disorder, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, brain trauma, and cerebrovascular disease.

In a multivariable analysis, the presence of any decompensating event was significantly associated with dementia. In subsequent analyses of individual decompensating events, however, the strongest association was with HE, while ascites or variceal bleeding did not add to the risk.

When HE was defined as patients who filled prescriptions for lactulose or rifaximin, the frequency of patients with HE decreased from 13.7% to 10.9%. In an analysis with HE as the decompensating event, the association between HE and dementia remained significant compared to when HE was defined by diagnostic codes alone.

“We were surprised by the high proportion of patients with dementia who also had cirrhosis, and given the genuine difficulty that clinicians have with defining HE vs. dementia, we were not very surprised at that overlap,” Dr. Bajaj said.

“We were also surprised at the specificity of this overlap only with HE and not with other decompensating events, which was also independent of head injury, alcohol use, and PTSD,” he added.
 

Additional research needed

Future research should look at the characteristics of HE, including the number of episodes or breakthrough episodes, and should focus on objective biomarkers to differentiate dementia and HE, the study authors write.

“The distinction and study of potential overlapping features among HE and dementia is important because HE is often treatable with medications and reverses after liver transplant, while this does not occur with dementia,” they add.

Dr. Bajaj and colleagues call for a greater awareness of disease processes and complications in older patients with cirrhosis, particularly since diagnostic imprecision can lead to patient and family confusion, distrust, and ineffective treatment.

The study will help physicians better understand the important overlap between dementia and HE, said Eric Orman, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Dr. Orman, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched recent trends in the characteristics and outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed cirrhosis and has found that the proportion of older adults has increased, as well as those with alcoholic cirrhosis and NASH, which has implications for future patient care.

“It is important to recognize that both dementia and HE can occur either separately or concurrently in individuals with cirrhosis,” Dr. Orman told this news organization. “When seeing patients with cognitive impairment, having a high index of suspicion for both conditions is critical to ensure appropriate diagnosis and treatment.”

The study’s findings “represent the tip of the iceberg,” Neal Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount left to be discovered regarding the role of the liver in brain health.”

Dr. Parikh, who wasn’t associated with this study, has researched the impact of chronic liver conditions on cognitive impairment and dementia. He is working on a project that addresses HE in detail.

“There is growing recognition of a so-called ‘liver-brain axis,’ with several researchers, including my group, showing that a range of chronic liver conditions may detrimentally impact cognitive function and increase the risk of dementia,” he said. “Studying the specific contributions of cirrhosis is critical for understanding the role of hepatic encephalopathy in age-related cognitive decline.”

The study received no financial support. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

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

Dementia frequently coexists with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with cirrhosis but doesn’t correlate with other decompensating events, according to a new study involving U.S. veterans.

The overlap between dementia and HE was also independent of alcohol use, brain injury, age, and other metabolic risk factors.

“The aging of patients with cirrhosis leads us to encounter several individuals who may be prone to both of these diseases,” senior author Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center and GI section of the Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System in Richmond, said in an interview.

“Given the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and alcohol, consider excluding cirrhosis in your patient [for] whom the presumptive diagnosis is dementia, since they could have concomitant HE,” he said.

“On the flip side, in those with HE who have predominant long-term memory issues and persistent cognitive changes, consider consulting a neuropsychiatrist or neurologist to ensure there is a resolution of the underlying disease process,” Dr. Bajaj added.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing associations

HE is a common decompensating event in patients with cirrhosis. Because of the aging population of patients with cirrhosis, however, it’s important to differentiate HE from nonhepatic etiologies of cognitive impairment, such as dementia, the authors note.

Using data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues identified veterans with cirrhosis who received VA care between October 2019 and September 2021 and compared baseline characteristics between the cohorts based on the presence or absence of dementia. The research team then evaluated factors associated with having a diagnosis of dementia, adjusting for demographics, comorbid illnesses, cirrhosis etiology, and cirrhosis complications.

Investigators identified 71,522 veterans with diagnostic codes for cirrhosis who were engaged in VA care in 2019. They were mostly men (96.2%) and had a median age of 66. The most common etiologies of cirrhosis were alcohol and hepatitis C, followed by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The group also included veterans with predominantly compensated cirrhosis and a median MELD-Na score of 9. The MELD-Na score gauges the severity of chronic liver disease using values such as serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio for prothrombin time and sodium to predict survival.

Among those with cirrhosis, 5,647 (7.9%) also had dementia diagnosis codes. This rate is higher than the prevalence of dementia in the general population and equivalent to the rate of dementia in veterans without cirrhosis who are older than 65, the authors note.

In general, veterans with dementia tended to be older, to be White, to live in an urban area, and to have higher MELD-Na scores, and they were more frequently diagnosed with alcohol-related cirrhosis, alcohol and tobacco use disorder, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, brain trauma, and cerebrovascular disease.

In a multivariable analysis, the presence of any decompensating event was significantly associated with dementia. In subsequent analyses of individual decompensating events, however, the strongest association was with HE, while ascites or variceal bleeding did not add to the risk.

When HE was defined as patients who filled prescriptions for lactulose or rifaximin, the frequency of patients with HE decreased from 13.7% to 10.9%. In an analysis with HE as the decompensating event, the association between HE and dementia remained significant compared to when HE was defined by diagnostic codes alone.

“We were surprised by the high proportion of patients with dementia who also had cirrhosis, and given the genuine difficulty that clinicians have with defining HE vs. dementia, we were not very surprised at that overlap,” Dr. Bajaj said.

“We were also surprised at the specificity of this overlap only with HE and not with other decompensating events, which was also independent of head injury, alcohol use, and PTSD,” he added.
 

Additional research needed

Future research should look at the characteristics of HE, including the number of episodes or breakthrough episodes, and should focus on objective biomarkers to differentiate dementia and HE, the study authors write.

“The distinction and study of potential overlapping features among HE and dementia is important because HE is often treatable with medications and reverses after liver transplant, while this does not occur with dementia,” they add.

Dr. Bajaj and colleagues call for a greater awareness of disease processes and complications in older patients with cirrhosis, particularly since diagnostic imprecision can lead to patient and family confusion, distrust, and ineffective treatment.

The study will help physicians better understand the important overlap between dementia and HE, said Eric Orman, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Dr. Orman, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched recent trends in the characteristics and outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed cirrhosis and has found that the proportion of older adults has increased, as well as those with alcoholic cirrhosis and NASH, which has implications for future patient care.

“It is important to recognize that both dementia and HE can occur either separately or concurrently in individuals with cirrhosis,” Dr. Orman told this news organization. “When seeing patients with cognitive impairment, having a high index of suspicion for both conditions is critical to ensure appropriate diagnosis and treatment.”

The study’s findings “represent the tip of the iceberg,” Neal Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount left to be discovered regarding the role of the liver in brain health.”

Dr. Parikh, who wasn’t associated with this study, has researched the impact of chronic liver conditions on cognitive impairment and dementia. He is working on a project that addresses HE in detail.

“There is growing recognition of a so-called ‘liver-brain axis,’ with several researchers, including my group, showing that a range of chronic liver conditions may detrimentally impact cognitive function and increase the risk of dementia,” he said. “Studying the specific contributions of cirrhosis is critical for understanding the role of hepatic encephalopathy in age-related cognitive decline.”

The study received no financial support. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

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

Dementia frequently coexists with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with cirrhosis but doesn’t correlate with other decompensating events, according to a new study involving U.S. veterans.

The overlap between dementia and HE was also independent of alcohol use, brain injury, age, and other metabolic risk factors.

“The aging of patients with cirrhosis leads us to encounter several individuals who may be prone to both of these diseases,” senior author Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center and GI section of the Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System in Richmond, said in an interview.

“Given the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and alcohol, consider excluding cirrhosis in your patient [for] whom the presumptive diagnosis is dementia, since they could have concomitant HE,” he said.

“On the flip side, in those with HE who have predominant long-term memory issues and persistent cognitive changes, consider consulting a neuropsychiatrist or neurologist to ensure there is a resolution of the underlying disease process,” Dr. Bajaj added.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing associations

HE is a common decompensating event in patients with cirrhosis. Because of the aging population of patients with cirrhosis, however, it’s important to differentiate HE from nonhepatic etiologies of cognitive impairment, such as dementia, the authors note.

Using data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues identified veterans with cirrhosis who received VA care between October 2019 and September 2021 and compared baseline characteristics between the cohorts based on the presence or absence of dementia. The research team then evaluated factors associated with having a diagnosis of dementia, adjusting for demographics, comorbid illnesses, cirrhosis etiology, and cirrhosis complications.

Investigators identified 71,522 veterans with diagnostic codes for cirrhosis who were engaged in VA care in 2019. They were mostly men (96.2%) and had a median age of 66. The most common etiologies of cirrhosis were alcohol and hepatitis C, followed by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The group also included veterans with predominantly compensated cirrhosis and a median MELD-Na score of 9. The MELD-Na score gauges the severity of chronic liver disease using values such as serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio for prothrombin time and sodium to predict survival.

Among those with cirrhosis, 5,647 (7.9%) also had dementia diagnosis codes. This rate is higher than the prevalence of dementia in the general population and equivalent to the rate of dementia in veterans without cirrhosis who are older than 65, the authors note.

In general, veterans with dementia tended to be older, to be White, to live in an urban area, and to have higher MELD-Na scores, and they were more frequently diagnosed with alcohol-related cirrhosis, alcohol and tobacco use disorder, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, brain trauma, and cerebrovascular disease.

In a multivariable analysis, the presence of any decompensating event was significantly associated with dementia. In subsequent analyses of individual decompensating events, however, the strongest association was with HE, while ascites or variceal bleeding did not add to the risk.

When HE was defined as patients who filled prescriptions for lactulose or rifaximin, the frequency of patients with HE decreased from 13.7% to 10.9%. In an analysis with HE as the decompensating event, the association between HE and dementia remained significant compared to when HE was defined by diagnostic codes alone.

“We were surprised by the high proportion of patients with dementia who also had cirrhosis, and given the genuine difficulty that clinicians have with defining HE vs. dementia, we were not very surprised at that overlap,” Dr. Bajaj said.

“We were also surprised at the specificity of this overlap only with HE and not with other decompensating events, which was also independent of head injury, alcohol use, and PTSD,” he added.
 

Additional research needed

Future research should look at the characteristics of HE, including the number of episodes or breakthrough episodes, and should focus on objective biomarkers to differentiate dementia and HE, the study authors write.

“The distinction and study of potential overlapping features among HE and dementia is important because HE is often treatable with medications and reverses after liver transplant, while this does not occur with dementia,” they add.

Dr. Bajaj and colleagues call for a greater awareness of disease processes and complications in older patients with cirrhosis, particularly since diagnostic imprecision can lead to patient and family confusion, distrust, and ineffective treatment.

The study will help physicians better understand the important overlap between dementia and HE, said Eric Orman, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Dr. Orman, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched recent trends in the characteristics and outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed cirrhosis and has found that the proportion of older adults has increased, as well as those with alcoholic cirrhosis and NASH, which has implications for future patient care.

“It is important to recognize that both dementia and HE can occur either separately or concurrently in individuals with cirrhosis,” Dr. Orman told this news organization. “When seeing patients with cognitive impairment, having a high index of suspicion for both conditions is critical to ensure appropriate diagnosis and treatment.”

The study’s findings “represent the tip of the iceberg,” Neal Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount left to be discovered regarding the role of the liver in brain health.”

Dr. Parikh, who wasn’t associated with this study, has researched the impact of chronic liver conditions on cognitive impairment and dementia. He is working on a project that addresses HE in detail.

“There is growing recognition of a so-called ‘liver-brain axis,’ with several researchers, including my group, showing that a range of chronic liver conditions may detrimentally impact cognitive function and increase the risk of dementia,” he said. “Studying the specific contributions of cirrhosis is critical for understanding the role of hepatic encephalopathy in age-related cognitive decline.”

The study received no financial support. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

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

Autism can be detected in children almost from birth using an algorithm to review their health records, a study from Duke University, Durham, N.C., says.

“We can use the first 30 days of a child’s health care experience to say, ‘This child is really at risk,’ ” said David Mandell, DSc, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in USA Today. He was not involved in the research.

Researchers analyzed electronic medical records of 45,000 children treated in the Duke University Health System as infants between 2006 and 2020. They created an algorithm that could predict which babies later developed autism. These babies were more likely to have been to an ophthalmologist or neurologist; had stomach or gastrointestinal issues; or received physical therapy.

“A huge number of factors across the infant’s entire health profile” went into the models, said study coauthor Matthew Engelhard, MD, an assistant professor of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke University. “Each one of those factors contributes incrementally.”

USA Today said the team “paid particular attention to how the model performed in groups of children who are often overlooked by traditional screening methods and, therefore, miss the advantages of early diagnosis, including girls, children of color, and children with combined diagnoses of autism and ADHD,” according to Dr. Engelhard.

The study could lead to the algorithm being used with other tools to diagnose and help children earlier, said study author Geraldine Dawson, PhD, who directs the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development.

“We need to be thinking about autism as not only a behavioral health condition but also a condition that involves physical health,” she said. “This is one way to take advantage of that information: in doing a better job at early detection.”

Autism is a complicated condition that includes communication and behavior challenges involving a range of symptoms and skills. It can be minor or a disability that requires full-time care.

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

Autism can be detected in children almost from birth using an algorithm to review their health records, a study from Duke University, Durham, N.C., says.

“We can use the first 30 days of a child’s health care experience to say, ‘This child is really at risk,’ ” said David Mandell, DSc, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in USA Today. He was not involved in the research.

Researchers analyzed electronic medical records of 45,000 children treated in the Duke University Health System as infants between 2006 and 2020. They created an algorithm that could predict which babies later developed autism. These babies were more likely to have been to an ophthalmologist or neurologist; had stomach or gastrointestinal issues; or received physical therapy.

“A huge number of factors across the infant’s entire health profile” went into the models, said study coauthor Matthew Engelhard, MD, an assistant professor of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke University. “Each one of those factors contributes incrementally.”

USA Today said the team “paid particular attention to how the model performed in groups of children who are often overlooked by traditional screening methods and, therefore, miss the advantages of early diagnosis, including girls, children of color, and children with combined diagnoses of autism and ADHD,” according to Dr. Engelhard.

The study could lead to the algorithm being used with other tools to diagnose and help children earlier, said study author Geraldine Dawson, PhD, who directs the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development.

“We need to be thinking about autism as not only a behavioral health condition but also a condition that involves physical health,” she said. “This is one way to take advantage of that information: in doing a better job at early detection.”

Autism is a complicated condition that includes communication and behavior challenges involving a range of symptoms and skills. It can be minor or a disability that requires full-time care.

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

Autism can be detected in children almost from birth using an algorithm to review their health records, a study from Duke University, Durham, N.C., says.

“We can use the first 30 days of a child’s health care experience to say, ‘This child is really at risk,’ ” said David Mandell, DSc, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in USA Today. He was not involved in the research.

Researchers analyzed electronic medical records of 45,000 children treated in the Duke University Health System as infants between 2006 and 2020. They created an algorithm that could predict which babies later developed autism. These babies were more likely to have been to an ophthalmologist or neurologist; had stomach or gastrointestinal issues; or received physical therapy.

“A huge number of factors across the infant’s entire health profile” went into the models, said study coauthor Matthew Engelhard, MD, an assistant professor of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke University. “Each one of those factors contributes incrementally.”

USA Today said the team “paid particular attention to how the model performed in groups of children who are often overlooked by traditional screening methods and, therefore, miss the advantages of early diagnosis, including girls, children of color, and children with combined diagnoses of autism and ADHD,” according to Dr. Engelhard.

The study could lead to the algorithm being used with other tools to diagnose and help children earlier, said study author Geraldine Dawson, PhD, who directs the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development.

“We need to be thinking about autism as not only a behavioral health condition but also a condition that involves physical health,” she said. “This is one way to take advantage of that information: in doing a better job at early detection.”

Autism is a complicated condition that includes communication and behavior challenges involving a range of symptoms and skills. It can be minor or a disability that requires full-time care.

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

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Bright light therapy significantly improved depressive symptoms in approximately half of adults with bipolar depression in a pilot study of 41 individuals.

Both depression and bipolar disorder are leading causes of disability worldwide, and data show that only 50%-60% of these patients respond to first-line antidepressants, wrote Alessandro Cuomo, MD, of the University of Siena Medical Center, Italy, and colleagues.

Bright light therapy (BLT) was originally introduced as a treatment for seasonal affective disorder, but its use has been expanded to treat nonseasonal depression and bipolar disorder, they said. However, the impact of BLT on depressive symptoms in bipolar depression in particular has not been examined, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 18 men and 23 women aged 18 years and older with bipolar depression based on DSM-5 criteria who had already been treated with antidepressants. The participants were randomized to antidepressants combined with BLT or antidepressants combined with red light exposure (controls). The participants were positioned at 30-80 cm from the 10,000-lux light source for 30 minutes daily. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years.

The primary outcome was scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and CGI-Severity of illness (CGI-S), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Quality of Life Scale (QOLS) after the 8 weeks of treatment.

After 4 weeks, MADRS scores and HAMD-17 scores were significantly lower in the treatment group, compared with the controls (20 and 18 vs. 27.5 and 24.9, respectively; P < .001). Quality of life scores increased in the treatment group, compared with controls, with median scores of 39 vs. 29.50, respectively.

After 8 weeks, the treatment group continued to show significant improvement, compared with the control group, with scores on the MADRS, HAMD-17, CGI-S, and QOLS of 14.0, 9.0, 1.0, and 62.0 vs. 16.0, 15.5, 2.0, and 40.0, respectively. No side effects were reported.

“From our findings, BLT [proved] particularly effective in bipolar patients without triggering any manic switch, as evidenced instead in some similar studies,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Although the mechanism of action for BLT remains unclear, the current study findings confirm the existing knowledge of BLT, they noted. The positive effect of BLT on quality of life “might be attributable to the ability of BLT to reduce the latency times of antidepressants and increase the production of serotonin and melatonin,” as shown in previous work, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, which prevents definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of BLT in combination with different antidepressants, and the heterogeneity of the antidepressant treatments, the researchers noted. Larger, prospective studies and randomized, controlled trials are needed, as are studies of special populations such as older adults or those with degenerative diseases, they said.

However, the results suggest BLT has value as a safe and effective treatment and a way to boost therapeutic response and reduce the impact of long-lasting therapies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Cuomo disclosed serving as a consultant and/or a speaker for Angelini, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Janssen, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Recordati.

Bright light therapy significantly improved depressive symptoms in approximately half of adults with bipolar depression in a pilot study of 41 individuals.

Both depression and bipolar disorder are leading causes of disability worldwide, and data show that only 50%-60% of these patients respond to first-line antidepressants, wrote Alessandro Cuomo, MD, of the University of Siena Medical Center, Italy, and colleagues.

Bright light therapy (BLT) was originally introduced as a treatment for seasonal affective disorder, but its use has been expanded to treat nonseasonal depression and bipolar disorder, they said. However, the impact of BLT on depressive symptoms in bipolar depression in particular has not been examined, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 18 men and 23 women aged 18 years and older with bipolar depression based on DSM-5 criteria who had already been treated with antidepressants. The participants were randomized to antidepressants combined with BLT or antidepressants combined with red light exposure (controls). The participants were positioned at 30-80 cm from the 10,000-lux light source for 30 minutes daily. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years.

The primary outcome was scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and CGI-Severity of illness (CGI-S), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Quality of Life Scale (QOLS) after the 8 weeks of treatment.

After 4 weeks, MADRS scores and HAMD-17 scores were significantly lower in the treatment group, compared with the controls (20 and 18 vs. 27.5 and 24.9, respectively; P < .001). Quality of life scores increased in the treatment group, compared with controls, with median scores of 39 vs. 29.50, respectively.

After 8 weeks, the treatment group continued to show significant improvement, compared with the control group, with scores on the MADRS, HAMD-17, CGI-S, and QOLS of 14.0, 9.0, 1.0, and 62.0 vs. 16.0, 15.5, 2.0, and 40.0, respectively. No side effects were reported.

“From our findings, BLT [proved] particularly effective in bipolar patients without triggering any manic switch, as evidenced instead in some similar studies,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Although the mechanism of action for BLT remains unclear, the current study findings confirm the existing knowledge of BLT, they noted. The positive effect of BLT on quality of life “might be attributable to the ability of BLT to reduce the latency times of antidepressants and increase the production of serotonin and melatonin,” as shown in previous work, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, which prevents definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of BLT in combination with different antidepressants, and the heterogeneity of the antidepressant treatments, the researchers noted. Larger, prospective studies and randomized, controlled trials are needed, as are studies of special populations such as older adults or those with degenerative diseases, they said.

However, the results suggest BLT has value as a safe and effective treatment and a way to boost therapeutic response and reduce the impact of long-lasting therapies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Cuomo disclosed serving as a consultant and/or a speaker for Angelini, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Janssen, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Recordati.

Bright light therapy significantly improved depressive symptoms in approximately half of adults with bipolar depression in a pilot study of 41 individuals.

Both depression and bipolar disorder are leading causes of disability worldwide, and data show that only 50%-60% of these patients respond to first-line antidepressants, wrote Alessandro Cuomo, MD, of the University of Siena Medical Center, Italy, and colleagues.

Bright light therapy (BLT) was originally introduced as a treatment for seasonal affective disorder, but its use has been expanded to treat nonseasonal depression and bipolar disorder, they said. However, the impact of BLT on depressive symptoms in bipolar depression in particular has not been examined, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 18 men and 23 women aged 18 years and older with bipolar depression based on DSM-5 criteria who had already been treated with antidepressants. The participants were randomized to antidepressants combined with BLT or antidepressants combined with red light exposure (controls). The participants were positioned at 30-80 cm from the 10,000-lux light source for 30 minutes daily. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years.

The primary outcome was scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and CGI-Severity of illness (CGI-S), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Quality of Life Scale (QOLS) after the 8 weeks of treatment.

After 4 weeks, MADRS scores and HAMD-17 scores were significantly lower in the treatment group, compared with the controls (20 and 18 vs. 27.5 and 24.9, respectively; P < .001). Quality of life scores increased in the treatment group, compared with controls, with median scores of 39 vs. 29.50, respectively.

After 8 weeks, the treatment group continued to show significant improvement, compared with the control group, with scores on the MADRS, HAMD-17, CGI-S, and QOLS of 14.0, 9.0, 1.0, and 62.0 vs. 16.0, 15.5, 2.0, and 40.0, respectively. No side effects were reported.

“From our findings, BLT [proved] particularly effective in bipolar patients without triggering any manic switch, as evidenced instead in some similar studies,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Although the mechanism of action for BLT remains unclear, the current study findings confirm the existing knowledge of BLT, they noted. The positive effect of BLT on quality of life “might be attributable to the ability of BLT to reduce the latency times of antidepressants and increase the production of serotonin and melatonin,” as shown in previous work, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, which prevents definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of BLT in combination with different antidepressants, and the heterogeneity of the antidepressant treatments, the researchers noted. Larger, prospective studies and randomized, controlled trials are needed, as are studies of special populations such as older adults or those with degenerative diseases, they said.

However, the results suggest BLT has value as a safe and effective treatment and a way to boost therapeutic response and reduce the impact of long-lasting therapies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Cuomo disclosed serving as a consultant and/or a speaker for Angelini, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Janssen, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Recordati.

The study covered in this summary was published on researchsquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• Following lumpectomy for early breast cancer, a 1-week schedule of partial breast radiation – 30 Gy delivered in 5 daily fractions – is safe, effective, and convenient for both patients and hospitals.

Why this matters

• According to numerous guidelines, partial breast irradiation after lumpectomy is a sound approach for early-stage breast cancer, but there is a lack of consensus about treatment schedules.
• The investigators suggest that 30 Gy in five daily fractions is a “valid option” for these patients in a field that lacks consensus.

Study design

• The team reviewed 381 women with early breast cancer treated with this approach (30 Gy in five daily fractions) at their center from 2013 to 2022.
• Half of patients had left-sided tumors, 94.5% had invasive ductal carcinomas, 96.6% had grade 1 or grade 2 disease, and tumors were luminal like in 99.2% of patients.
• Following lumpectomy, women underwent partial breast irradiation to the tumor bed plus 15 mm of isometric expansion beyond it.
• Follow-up was a median of 28 months.

Key results

• Seven patients (2%) had a local recurrence, of which two were in the treatment field.
• Three-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were high (97.5%, 95.7%, and 96.9%, respectively).
• Nearly 90% of patients and 97% of physicians reported good or excellent cosmesis.
• Ten patients (2.9%) had grade 2 late toxicities, including edema, asthenia, and fibrosis; there were no grade 3 or higher adverse events.
• Five patients (1.5%) had late cardiac major events, four of whom were treated on the right breast; three patients (0.9%) had late pulmonary fibrosis.
• The safety and efficacy outcomes are in line with previous reports, including those that used different dosage and/or fractionation schedules.

Limitations

• The study was retrospective, with a relatively short follow-up.
• Quality of life was not assessed.
• There was no objective baseline measure of cosmesis against which to compare cosmetic results.

Disclosures

• There was no funding for the study, and the investigators didn’t have any conflicts of interest to report.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “One-Week External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation: Survival and Toxicity Outcomes,” led by Riccardo Ray Colciago from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan. The study has not been peer reviewed. The full text can be found at researchsquare.com.
 

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

The study covered in this summary was published on researchsquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• Following lumpectomy for early breast cancer, a 1-week schedule of partial breast radiation – 30 Gy delivered in 5 daily fractions – is safe, effective, and convenient for both patients and hospitals.

Why this matters

• According to numerous guidelines, partial breast irradiation after lumpectomy is a sound approach for early-stage breast cancer, but there is a lack of consensus about treatment schedules.
• The investigators suggest that 30 Gy in five daily fractions is a “valid option” for these patients in a field that lacks consensus.

Study design

• The team reviewed 381 women with early breast cancer treated with this approach (30 Gy in five daily fractions) at their center from 2013 to 2022.
• Half of patients had left-sided tumors, 94.5% had invasive ductal carcinomas, 96.6% had grade 1 or grade 2 disease, and tumors were luminal like in 99.2% of patients.
• Following lumpectomy, women underwent partial breast irradiation to the tumor bed plus 15 mm of isometric expansion beyond it.
• Follow-up was a median of 28 months.

Key results

• Seven patients (2%) had a local recurrence, of which two were in the treatment field.
• Three-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were high (97.5%, 95.7%, and 96.9%, respectively).
• Nearly 90% of patients and 97% of physicians reported good or excellent cosmesis.
• Ten patients (2.9%) had grade 2 late toxicities, including edema, asthenia, and fibrosis; there were no grade 3 or higher adverse events.
• Five patients (1.5%) had late cardiac major events, four of whom were treated on the right breast; three patients (0.9%) had late pulmonary fibrosis.
• The safety and efficacy outcomes are in line with previous reports, including those that used different dosage and/or fractionation schedules.

Limitations

• The study was retrospective, with a relatively short follow-up.
• Quality of life was not assessed.
• There was no objective baseline measure of cosmesis against which to compare cosmetic results.

Disclosures

• There was no funding for the study, and the investigators didn’t have any conflicts of interest to report.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “One-Week External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation: Survival and Toxicity Outcomes,” led by Riccardo Ray Colciago from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan. The study has not been peer reviewed. The full text can be found at researchsquare.com.
 

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

The study covered in this summary was published on researchsquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• Following lumpectomy for early breast cancer, a 1-week schedule of partial breast radiation – 30 Gy delivered in 5 daily fractions – is safe, effective, and convenient for both patients and hospitals.

Why this matters

• According to numerous guidelines, partial breast irradiation after lumpectomy is a sound approach for early-stage breast cancer, but there is a lack of consensus about treatment schedules.
• The investigators suggest that 30 Gy in five daily fractions is a “valid option” for these patients in a field that lacks consensus.

Study design

• The team reviewed 381 women with early breast cancer treated with this approach (30 Gy in five daily fractions) at their center from 2013 to 2022.
• Half of patients had left-sided tumors, 94.5% had invasive ductal carcinomas, 96.6% had grade 1 or grade 2 disease, and tumors were luminal like in 99.2% of patients.
• Following lumpectomy, women underwent partial breast irradiation to the tumor bed plus 15 mm of isometric expansion beyond it.
• Follow-up was a median of 28 months.

Key results

• Seven patients (2%) had a local recurrence, of which two were in the treatment field.
• Three-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were high (97.5%, 95.7%, and 96.9%, respectively).
• Nearly 90% of patients and 97% of physicians reported good or excellent cosmesis.
• Ten patients (2.9%) had grade 2 late toxicities, including edema, asthenia, and fibrosis; there were no grade 3 or higher adverse events.
• Five patients (1.5%) had late cardiac major events, four of whom were treated on the right breast; three patients (0.9%) had late pulmonary fibrosis.
• The safety and efficacy outcomes are in line with previous reports, including those that used different dosage and/or fractionation schedules.

Limitations

• The study was retrospective, with a relatively short follow-up.
• Quality of life was not assessed.
• There was no objective baseline measure of cosmesis against which to compare cosmetic results.

Disclosures

• There was no funding for the study, and the investigators didn’t have any conflicts of interest to report.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “One-Week External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation: Survival and Toxicity Outcomes,” led by Riccardo Ray Colciago from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan. The study has not been peer reviewed. The full text can be found at researchsquare.com.
 

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

Ozempic and Wegovy are two prescription drugs that have transformed the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Both are a form of semaglutide; the Food and Drug Administration approved Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, followed by Wegovy in 2021 for weight loss in adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Ozempic is not approved for weight loss, but it has been prescribed off label for that purpose.

An effective treatment, participants with overweight or obesity in one study experienced almost a mean 15% drop in body weight with subcutaneous semaglutide administered once a week versus about 2% with placebo after 68 weeks.

In 2022, high demand and global supply constraints gave rise to shortages of both medications. The FDA reported a Wegovy shortage in March 2022, followed by an Ozempic shortage in August. Social media attention and increased off-label prescribing, with some patients purporting to have had significant improvements with weight loss and their quality of life, including having their clothing fit better and being able to bend over and tie their shoes, increased attention on these medications to the point that off-label prescribing of both drugs for weight loss resulted in some patients with type 2 diabetes unable to receive their medication on time. In late January 2023, NBC reported that Ozempic prescriptions had “tripled from 2021 to 2022,” based on data from the prescription drug discount company SingleCare.

Semaglutide is designed to mimic a hormone that signals to the brain when a person is full and promotes the release of insulin. In turn, the medications can result in lower blood glucose levels, appetite suppression, and reduced caloric intake. Injected once weekly, the medication, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, specifically, activates GLP-1 receptors in the brain, increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying (acting as an incretin mimetic).
 

‘Ozempic face’

Common adverse events with semaglutide can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and injection-site reactions. Rare, but more severe adverse events may include thyroid C-cell tumor (in animal studies), medullary thyroid cancer risk, hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, chronic renal failure exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cholelithiasis.

A less severe but noticeable side effect that has gained attention is facial wasting and aging, reportedly coined “Ozempic face” by a dermatologist interviewed for an article published in January in The New York Times.

As of Feb. 9, TikTok videos from individuals describing their personal experiences, health care professionals, and others with the tag #ozempicface had 4.8 million views.

Weight loss in the face is not specific to Ozempic or Wegovy, but may occur with any weight-loss treatment as fat loss affects the entire body, including the face. Theories as to why noticeable facial changes occur with these medications include: accelerated loss of facial pads that already tend to diminish or shift with normal aging, as well as the inability of skin elasticity to keep up with the loss of volume (fat), resulting in more prominent hanging skin and the appearance of “jowls.” Wan and colleagues have described the fat pad distribution in the face and the facial aging that occurs as a result of the loss and shifting of these fat pads over time.

In the same way that we use facial fillers to help treat and correct volume/fat loss associated with photoaging, facial fillers may be used to help restore volume where it’s been lost after weight loss. The sagging skin or loss of elasticity often associated with Ozempic-related weight loss or with rapid or noticeable weight loss in general, may or may not also require other interventions that include treatment with tissue tightening devices – such as radiofrequency energy, high-focused ultrasound energy, threads, and/or surgery – such as a face lift. The potential high cost of both off-label prescribing of these medications (especially without use of prescription health insurance) as well as treatment to correct any facial wasting has also received attention in news media and social media discussions of this topic.

Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at [email protected]. She has no relevant disclosures.

*Correction 1/28/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the approval date of Wegovy. It was in 2021.

Ozempic and Wegovy are two prescription drugs that have transformed the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Both are a form of semaglutide; the Food and Drug Administration approved Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, followed by Wegovy in 2021 for weight loss in adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Ozempic is not approved for weight loss, but it has been prescribed off label for that purpose.

An effective treatment, participants with overweight or obesity in one study experienced almost a mean 15% drop in body weight with subcutaneous semaglutide administered once a week versus about 2% with placebo after 68 weeks.

In 2022, high demand and global supply constraints gave rise to shortages of both medications. The FDA reported a Wegovy shortage in March 2022, followed by an Ozempic shortage in August. Social media attention and increased off-label prescribing, with some patients purporting to have had significant improvements with weight loss and their quality of life, including having their clothing fit better and being able to bend over and tie their shoes, increased attention on these medications to the point that off-label prescribing of both drugs for weight loss resulted in some patients with type 2 diabetes unable to receive their medication on time. In late January 2023, NBC reported that Ozempic prescriptions had “tripled from 2021 to 2022,” based on data from the prescription drug discount company SingleCare.

Semaglutide is designed to mimic a hormone that signals to the brain when a person is full and promotes the release of insulin. In turn, the medications can result in lower blood glucose levels, appetite suppression, and reduced caloric intake. Injected once weekly, the medication, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, specifically, activates GLP-1 receptors in the brain, increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying (acting as an incretin mimetic).
 

‘Ozempic face’

Common adverse events with semaglutide can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and injection-site reactions. Rare, but more severe adverse events may include thyroid C-cell tumor (in animal studies), medullary thyroid cancer risk, hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, chronic renal failure exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cholelithiasis.

A less severe but noticeable side effect that has gained attention is facial wasting and aging, reportedly coined “Ozempic face” by a dermatologist interviewed for an article published in January in The New York Times.

As of Feb. 9, TikTok videos from individuals describing their personal experiences, health care professionals, and others with the tag #ozempicface had 4.8 million views.

Weight loss in the face is not specific to Ozempic or Wegovy, but may occur with any weight-loss treatment as fat loss affects the entire body, including the face. Theories as to why noticeable facial changes occur with these medications include: accelerated loss of facial pads that already tend to diminish or shift with normal aging, as well as the inability of skin elasticity to keep up with the loss of volume (fat), resulting in more prominent hanging skin and the appearance of “jowls.” Wan and colleagues have described the fat pad distribution in the face and the facial aging that occurs as a result of the loss and shifting of these fat pads over time.

In the same way that we use facial fillers to help treat and correct volume/fat loss associated with photoaging, facial fillers may be used to help restore volume where it’s been lost after weight loss. The sagging skin or loss of elasticity often associated with Ozempic-related weight loss or with rapid or noticeable weight loss in general, may or may not also require other interventions that include treatment with tissue tightening devices – such as radiofrequency energy, high-focused ultrasound energy, threads, and/or surgery – such as a face lift. The potential high cost of both off-label prescribing of these medications (especially without use of prescription health insurance) as well as treatment to correct any facial wasting has also received attention in news media and social media discussions of this topic.

Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at [email protected]. She has no relevant disclosures.

*Correction 1/28/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the approval date of Wegovy. It was in 2021.

Ozempic and Wegovy are two prescription drugs that have transformed the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Both are a form of semaglutide; the Food and Drug Administration approved Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, followed by Wegovy in 2021 for weight loss in adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Ozempic is not approved for weight loss, but it has been prescribed off label for that purpose.

An effective treatment, participants with overweight or obesity in one study experienced almost a mean 15% drop in body weight with subcutaneous semaglutide administered once a week versus about 2% with placebo after 68 weeks.

In 2022, high demand and global supply constraints gave rise to shortages of both medications. The FDA reported a Wegovy shortage in March 2022, followed by an Ozempic shortage in August. Social media attention and increased off-label prescribing, with some patients purporting to have had significant improvements with weight loss and their quality of life, including having their clothing fit better and being able to bend over and tie their shoes, increased attention on these medications to the point that off-label prescribing of both drugs for weight loss resulted in some patients with type 2 diabetes unable to receive their medication on time. In late January 2023, NBC reported that Ozempic prescriptions had “tripled from 2021 to 2022,” based on data from the prescription drug discount company SingleCare.

Semaglutide is designed to mimic a hormone that signals to the brain when a person is full and promotes the release of insulin. In turn, the medications can result in lower blood glucose levels, appetite suppression, and reduced caloric intake. Injected once weekly, the medication, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, specifically, activates GLP-1 receptors in the brain, increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying (acting as an incretin mimetic).
 

‘Ozempic face’

Common adverse events with semaglutide can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and injection-site reactions. Rare, but more severe adverse events may include thyroid C-cell tumor (in animal studies), medullary thyroid cancer risk, hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, chronic renal failure exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cholelithiasis.

A less severe but noticeable side effect that has gained attention is facial wasting and aging, reportedly coined “Ozempic face” by a dermatologist interviewed for an article published in January in The New York Times.

As of Feb. 9, TikTok videos from individuals describing their personal experiences, health care professionals, and others with the tag #ozempicface had 4.8 million views.

Weight loss in the face is not specific to Ozempic or Wegovy, but may occur with any weight-loss treatment as fat loss affects the entire body, including the face. Theories as to why noticeable facial changes occur with these medications include: accelerated loss of facial pads that already tend to diminish or shift with normal aging, as well as the inability of skin elasticity to keep up with the loss of volume (fat), resulting in more prominent hanging skin and the appearance of “jowls.” Wan and colleagues have described the fat pad distribution in the face and the facial aging that occurs as a result of the loss and shifting of these fat pads over time.

In the same way that we use facial fillers to help treat and correct volume/fat loss associated with photoaging, facial fillers may be used to help restore volume where it’s been lost after weight loss. The sagging skin or loss of elasticity often associated with Ozempic-related weight loss or with rapid or noticeable weight loss in general, may or may not also require other interventions that include treatment with tissue tightening devices – such as radiofrequency energy, high-focused ultrasound energy, threads, and/or surgery – such as a face lift. The potential high cost of both off-label prescribing of these medications (especially without use of prescription health insurance) as well as treatment to correct any facial wasting has also received attention in news media and social media discussions of this topic.

Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at [email protected]. She has no relevant disclosures.

*Correction 1/28/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the approval date of Wegovy. It was in 2021.