User login
More on psilocybin
I would like to remark on “Psychedelics for treating psychiatric disorders: Are they safe?” (
The Oregon Psilocybin Services that will begin in 2023 are not specific to therapeutic use; this is a common misconception. These are specifically referred to as “psilocybin services” in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and psilocybin facilitators are required to limit their scope such that they are not practicing psychotherapy or other interventions, even if they do have a medical or psychotherapy background. The intention of the Oregon Psilocybin Services rollout was that these services would not be of the medical model. In the spirit of this, services do not require a medical diagnosis or referral, and services are not a medical or clinical treatment (OAR 333-333-5040). Additionally, services cannot be provided in a health care facility (OAR 441). Facilitators receive robust training as defined by Oregon law, and licensed facilitators provide this information during preparation for services. When discussing this model on a large public scale, I have noticed substantial misconceptions; it is imperative that we refer to these services as they are defined so that individuals with mental health conditions who seek them are aware that such services are different from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. Instead, Oregon Psilocybin Services might be better categorized as supported psilocybin use.
I would like to remark on “Psychedelics for treating psychiatric disorders: Are they safe?” (
The Oregon Psilocybin Services that will begin in 2023 are not specific to therapeutic use; this is a common misconception. These are specifically referred to as “psilocybin services” in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and psilocybin facilitators are required to limit their scope such that they are not practicing psychotherapy or other interventions, even if they do have a medical or psychotherapy background. The intention of the Oregon Psilocybin Services rollout was that these services would not be of the medical model. In the spirit of this, services do not require a medical diagnosis or referral, and services are not a medical or clinical treatment (OAR 333-333-5040). Additionally, services cannot be provided in a health care facility (OAR 441). Facilitators receive robust training as defined by Oregon law, and licensed facilitators provide this information during preparation for services. When discussing this model on a large public scale, I have noticed substantial misconceptions; it is imperative that we refer to these services as they are defined so that individuals with mental health conditions who seek them are aware that such services are different from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. Instead, Oregon Psilocybin Services might be better categorized as supported psilocybin use.
I would like to remark on “Psychedelics for treating psychiatric disorders: Are they safe?” (
The Oregon Psilocybin Services that will begin in 2023 are not specific to therapeutic use; this is a common misconception. These are specifically referred to as “psilocybin services” in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and psilocybin facilitators are required to limit their scope such that they are not practicing psychotherapy or other interventions, even if they do have a medical or psychotherapy background. The intention of the Oregon Psilocybin Services rollout was that these services would not be of the medical model. In the spirit of this, services do not require a medical diagnosis or referral, and services are not a medical or clinical treatment (OAR 333-333-5040). Additionally, services cannot be provided in a health care facility (OAR 441). Facilitators receive robust training as defined by Oregon law, and licensed facilitators provide this information during preparation for services. When discussing this model on a large public scale, I have noticed substantial misconceptions; it is imperative that we refer to these services as they are defined so that individuals with mental health conditions who seek them are aware that such services are different from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. Instead, Oregon Psilocybin Services might be better categorized as supported psilocybin use.
Advances in fertility preservation: Q & A
From the first obscure reference until the 19th century, the maternal mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy was nearly 100%. In the past 140 years, because of early detection and prompt surgical management, the mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy declined from 72%-90% in 1880 to 0.48% from 2004 to 2008.1 Given this remarkable reduction in mortality, the 20th-century approach to ectopic pregnancy evolved from preserving the life of the mother to preserving fertility by utilizing conservative treatment with methotrexate and/or tubal surgery.
Why the reference to ectopic pregnancy? Advances in oncology have comparably affected our approach to cancer patients. The increase in survival rates following a cancer diagnosis has fostered revolutionary developments in fertility preservation to obviate the effect of gonadotoxic therapy. We have evolved from shielding and transposing ovaries to ovarian tissue cryopreservation2,3 with rapid implementation.
One of the leaders in the field of female fertility preservation is Kutluk Oktay, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. I posed the following salient questions to him on the state of fertility preservation as well as expectations for the future.
Q1. What medication/treatment is gonadotoxic that warrants a consultation for fertility preservation?
A: While new drugs for cancer treatment continue to be approved and require testing for gonadotoxicity, evidence is clear on the damaging effects of alkylating agents such as cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, chlorambucil, and melphalan on primordial follicle reserve.4 A useful tool to determine the risk of alkylating agents affecting fertility is the Cyclophosphamide Equivalent Dose (CED) Calculator. Likewise, topoisomerase inhibitors, such as doxorubicin4 induce ovarian reserve damage by causing double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) in oocytes.5-7 Contrary to common belief, chemotherapy exposure suppresses the mechanisms that can initiate follicle growth.6 When DSBs occur, some oocytes may be able to repair such damage, otherwise apoptosis is triggered, which results in irreversible ovarian reserve loss.7 Younger individuals have much higher repair capacity, the magnitude of damage can be hard to predict, and it is variable.8,9 So, prior exposure to gonadotoxic drugs does not preclude consideration of fertility preservation.10
In addition, pelvic radiation, in a dose-dependent manner, causes severe DSBs and triggers the same cell suicide mechanisms while also potentially damaging uterine function. Additional information can be found in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Fertility Preservation Guidelines.4
Q2. What are the current options for fertility preservation in patients who will be exposed to gonadotoxic medication/treatment?
A: The current fertility preservation options for female patients faced with gonadotoxic treatments are embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC). Selection of fertility preservation is typically contingent upon the timetable of treatment. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation have been the standard of care. Recently, OTC had its experimental designation removed by American Society for Reproductive Medicine11 with the advantage of not requiring ovarian stimulation or sexual maturity; and it may to be performed while patients are receiving chemotherapy. If successful, OTC followed by orthotopic transplantation has the potential to restore natural ovarian function, thereby allowing spontaneous conception.10 Especially in young adults, ovarian reserve loss is fractional and can remain at reasonable levels after a few courses of chemotherapy. Ovarian stimulation is risky after the initiation of chemotherapy because of the severe DNA damage to oocytes of developing follicles and the associated poor response.7 Hence, ovarian stimulation should be initiated and completed before the initiation of chemotherapy.
Q3. How successful are the approved fertility preservation options in obtaining oocytes for future utilization by ART?
A: We have decades of experience with embryo cryopreservation and proven success rates that patients can check on the SART.org website for individual clinics. For oocyte cryopreservation, models are used to provide calculation estimates because the technique is less established.12 Although success rates are approaching those with fresh oocytes, they are still not equal.13 OTC followed by orthotopic tissue transplantation has the least outcomes data (approximately 200 reported livebirths to date with a 25% live birth rate per recipient worldwide10 since the first success was reported in 2000.2,14
With our robotic surgical approach to orthotopic and heterotopic ovarian tissue transplantation and the utility of neovascularizing agents, we have found that ovarian graft longevity is extended. Oocytes/embryos can be obtained and has resulted in one to two livebirths in all our recipients to date.10 Unfortunately, if any of the critical steps are not up to standards (freezing, thawing, or transplantation), success rates can dramatically decline. Therefore, providers and patients should seek centers with experience in all three stages of this procedure to maximize outcomes.
Q4. Are there concerns of increasing recurrence/mortality with fertility preservation given hormonal exposure?
A: Yes, this concern exists, at least in theory for estrogen-sensitive cancers, most commonly breast cancer. We developed ovarian stimulation protocols supplemented with anti-estrogen treatments (tamoxifen, an estrogen-receptor antagonist, and letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) that appear equally effective and reduce estrogen exposure in any susceptible cancer.15,16 Even in estrogen receptor–negative tumors, high estrogen exposure may activate non–estrogen receptor–dependent pathways. In addition, even those tumors that are practically deemed estrogen receptor negative may still contain a small percentage of estrogen receptors, which may become active at high estrogen levels.
Therefore, when we approach women with estrogen-sensitive cancers, e.g., breast and endometrial, we do not alter our approach based on receptor status. One exception occurs in women with BRCA mutations, especially the BRCA1, as they have 25% lower serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels,8,17 yield fewer oocytes in response to ovarian stimulation,18,19 and have lower fertilization rates and embryo numbers20 compared with those without the mutations.
Q5. Are all reproductive centers capable of offering fertility preservation? If not, how does a patient find a center?
A: All IVF clinics offer embryo and, presumably, oocyte cryopreservation. Pregnancy outcomes vary based on the center’s experience. Globally, major differences exist in the availability and competency of OTC along with the subsequent transplantation approach. A limited number of centers have competency in all aspects of OTC, i.e., cryopreservation, thawing, and transplantation. In general, fertility preservation patients have a multitude of medical issues that necessitate management expertise and the bandwidth to coordinate with cancer health professionals. The reproductive centers offering fertility preservation should be prepared to respond immediately and accommodate patients about to undergo gonadotoxic treatment.
Q6. How should a patient be counseled before proceeding with fertility preservation?
A: The candidate should be counseled on the likelihood of damage from gonadotoxic therapy and all fertility preservation options, on the basis of the urgency of treatment and the woman’s long-term goals. For example, the desire for a large family may compel a patient to undergo multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation or a combination of oocyte/embryo cryopreservation with OTC. In patients who are undergoing embryo cryopreservation, I recommend preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, although there are limitations to its application. Other novel pieces of information we are using in counseling are baseline AMH levels and BRCA mutation status for women with breast cancer. In an 8-year-long NIH-funded prospective longitudinal study we found that women with both baseline AMH < 2 ng/mL and BRCA mutations are at significantly higher risk of losing their ovarian reserve and developing amenorrhea.21 Because the oocytes of women with BRCA mutations are deficient in DNA repair as we have previously shown,19 they are more liable to death upon exposure to DNA-damaging cancer drugs such as cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin.22
Q7. What is the time limit for use of cryopreserved oocytes/tissue?
A: Under optimal storage conditions, cryopreserved oocytes/tissue can be utilized indefinitely without a negative effect on pregnancy outcomes.
Q8. What does the future hold for fertility preservation?
A: The future holds promise for both the medical and nonmedical (planned) utility of fertility preservation. With the former, we will see that the utility of OTC and orthotopic and heterotopic tissue transplantation increase as success rates improve. Improved neovascularizing agents will make the transplants last longer and enhance pregnancy outcomes.23,24 I see planned fertility preservation increasing, based on the experience gained from cancer patients and some preliminary experience with planned OTC, especially for healthy women who wish to consider delaying menopause.25,26
Because of attrition from apoptosis, approximately 2,000 oocytes are wasted per ovulation. Through calculation models, we predict that if an equivalent of one-third of a woman’s ovarian cortex can be cryopreserved (which may not significantly affect the age at natural menopause) before age 40 years, transplantation at perimenopause may provide sufficient primordial follicles to delay menopause for 5 years or longer.26 Because ovarian tissue can also be transplanted subcutaneously under local anesthesia, as we have shown,27,28 repeated heterotopic transplants can be performed in an office setting at reduced cost, invasiveness, and with enhanced effectiveness. We can expect increasing reports and progress on this planned use of OTC and transplantation in the future.
Dr. Oktay is professor of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive sciences and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
References
1. Lurie S. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992 Jan 9;43(1):1-7.
2. Oktay K and Karlikaya G. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1919.
3. Sonmezer and Oktay K. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(3):251-66.
4. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1994-2001.
5. Goldfarb SB et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;185:165-73.
6. Titus S et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 11;11(1):407.
7. Soleimani R et al. Aging (Albany NY). 2011 Aug;3(8):782-93.
8. Titus S et al. Sci Transl Med. 2013 Feb 13;5(172):172ra21.
9. Oktay KH et al. Fertil Steril. 2022 Jan 5:S0015-0282(21)02293-7.
10. Oktay K et al. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(1):181-92.
11. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1022–33.
12. Cil A et al. Fertil Steril. 2013 Aug;100(2):492-9.e3.
13. Goldman KN et al. Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):712-7.
14. Marin L and Oktay K. Scientific history of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. In: Oktay K (ed.), Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier;2022:1-10.
15. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 1;23(19):4347-53.
16. Kim JY et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Apr;101(4):1364-71.
17. Turan V et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:18.
18. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):240-4.
19. Lin W et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(10):3839-47.
20. Turan V et al. Reprod Sci. 2018;(25):26-32.
21. Oktay K et al. Presence of BRCA mutations and a pre-chemotherapy AMH level of < 2ng/mL strongly predict risk of amenorrhea in women with breast cancer P-291. Presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 78th annual meeting, Anaheim, Calif. Oct. 22-26, 2022.
22. Oktay KH et al. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(6):1251‐60.e1.
23. Soleimani R et al. PLoS One. 2011 Apr 29;6(4):e19475.
24. Marin L et al. Future aspects of ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation. In: Oktay K (ed.). Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier; 2022;223-30.
25. Oktay KH et al. Trends Mol Med. 2021;27(8):753-61.
26. Oktay K and Marin L. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation for delaying childbearing and menopause. In: Oktay, K. (Ed.), Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier;2022:195-204.
27. Oktay K et al. JAMA. 2001 Sep 26;286(12):1490-3.
28. Oktay K et al. Lancet. 2004 Mar 13;363(9412):837-40.
From the first obscure reference until the 19th century, the maternal mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy was nearly 100%. In the past 140 years, because of early detection and prompt surgical management, the mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy declined from 72%-90% in 1880 to 0.48% from 2004 to 2008.1 Given this remarkable reduction in mortality, the 20th-century approach to ectopic pregnancy evolved from preserving the life of the mother to preserving fertility by utilizing conservative treatment with methotrexate and/or tubal surgery.
Why the reference to ectopic pregnancy? Advances in oncology have comparably affected our approach to cancer patients. The increase in survival rates following a cancer diagnosis has fostered revolutionary developments in fertility preservation to obviate the effect of gonadotoxic therapy. We have evolved from shielding and transposing ovaries to ovarian tissue cryopreservation2,3 with rapid implementation.
One of the leaders in the field of female fertility preservation is Kutluk Oktay, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. I posed the following salient questions to him on the state of fertility preservation as well as expectations for the future.
Q1. What medication/treatment is gonadotoxic that warrants a consultation for fertility preservation?
A: While new drugs for cancer treatment continue to be approved and require testing for gonadotoxicity, evidence is clear on the damaging effects of alkylating agents such as cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, chlorambucil, and melphalan on primordial follicle reserve.4 A useful tool to determine the risk of alkylating agents affecting fertility is the Cyclophosphamide Equivalent Dose (CED) Calculator. Likewise, topoisomerase inhibitors, such as doxorubicin4 induce ovarian reserve damage by causing double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) in oocytes.5-7 Contrary to common belief, chemotherapy exposure suppresses the mechanisms that can initiate follicle growth.6 When DSBs occur, some oocytes may be able to repair such damage, otherwise apoptosis is triggered, which results in irreversible ovarian reserve loss.7 Younger individuals have much higher repair capacity, the magnitude of damage can be hard to predict, and it is variable.8,9 So, prior exposure to gonadotoxic drugs does not preclude consideration of fertility preservation.10
In addition, pelvic radiation, in a dose-dependent manner, causes severe DSBs and triggers the same cell suicide mechanisms while also potentially damaging uterine function. Additional information can be found in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Fertility Preservation Guidelines.4
Q2. What are the current options for fertility preservation in patients who will be exposed to gonadotoxic medication/treatment?
A: The current fertility preservation options for female patients faced with gonadotoxic treatments are embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC). Selection of fertility preservation is typically contingent upon the timetable of treatment. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation have been the standard of care. Recently, OTC had its experimental designation removed by American Society for Reproductive Medicine11 with the advantage of not requiring ovarian stimulation or sexual maturity; and it may to be performed while patients are receiving chemotherapy. If successful, OTC followed by orthotopic transplantation has the potential to restore natural ovarian function, thereby allowing spontaneous conception.10 Especially in young adults, ovarian reserve loss is fractional and can remain at reasonable levels after a few courses of chemotherapy. Ovarian stimulation is risky after the initiation of chemotherapy because of the severe DNA damage to oocytes of developing follicles and the associated poor response.7 Hence, ovarian stimulation should be initiated and completed before the initiation of chemotherapy.
Q3. How successful are the approved fertility preservation options in obtaining oocytes for future utilization by ART?
A: We have decades of experience with embryo cryopreservation and proven success rates that patients can check on the SART.org website for individual clinics. For oocyte cryopreservation, models are used to provide calculation estimates because the technique is less established.12 Although success rates are approaching those with fresh oocytes, they are still not equal.13 OTC followed by orthotopic tissue transplantation has the least outcomes data (approximately 200 reported livebirths to date with a 25% live birth rate per recipient worldwide10 since the first success was reported in 2000.2,14
With our robotic surgical approach to orthotopic and heterotopic ovarian tissue transplantation and the utility of neovascularizing agents, we have found that ovarian graft longevity is extended. Oocytes/embryos can be obtained and has resulted in one to two livebirths in all our recipients to date.10 Unfortunately, if any of the critical steps are not up to standards (freezing, thawing, or transplantation), success rates can dramatically decline. Therefore, providers and patients should seek centers with experience in all three stages of this procedure to maximize outcomes.
Q4. Are there concerns of increasing recurrence/mortality with fertility preservation given hormonal exposure?
A: Yes, this concern exists, at least in theory for estrogen-sensitive cancers, most commonly breast cancer. We developed ovarian stimulation protocols supplemented with anti-estrogen treatments (tamoxifen, an estrogen-receptor antagonist, and letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) that appear equally effective and reduce estrogen exposure in any susceptible cancer.15,16 Even in estrogen receptor–negative tumors, high estrogen exposure may activate non–estrogen receptor–dependent pathways. In addition, even those tumors that are practically deemed estrogen receptor negative may still contain a small percentage of estrogen receptors, which may become active at high estrogen levels.
Therefore, when we approach women with estrogen-sensitive cancers, e.g., breast and endometrial, we do not alter our approach based on receptor status. One exception occurs in women with BRCA mutations, especially the BRCA1, as they have 25% lower serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels,8,17 yield fewer oocytes in response to ovarian stimulation,18,19 and have lower fertilization rates and embryo numbers20 compared with those without the mutations.
Q5. Are all reproductive centers capable of offering fertility preservation? If not, how does a patient find a center?
A: All IVF clinics offer embryo and, presumably, oocyte cryopreservation. Pregnancy outcomes vary based on the center’s experience. Globally, major differences exist in the availability and competency of OTC along with the subsequent transplantation approach. A limited number of centers have competency in all aspects of OTC, i.e., cryopreservation, thawing, and transplantation. In general, fertility preservation patients have a multitude of medical issues that necessitate management expertise and the bandwidth to coordinate with cancer health professionals. The reproductive centers offering fertility preservation should be prepared to respond immediately and accommodate patients about to undergo gonadotoxic treatment.
Q6. How should a patient be counseled before proceeding with fertility preservation?
A: The candidate should be counseled on the likelihood of damage from gonadotoxic therapy and all fertility preservation options, on the basis of the urgency of treatment and the woman’s long-term goals. For example, the desire for a large family may compel a patient to undergo multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation or a combination of oocyte/embryo cryopreservation with OTC. In patients who are undergoing embryo cryopreservation, I recommend preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, although there are limitations to its application. Other novel pieces of information we are using in counseling are baseline AMH levels and BRCA mutation status for women with breast cancer. In an 8-year-long NIH-funded prospective longitudinal study we found that women with both baseline AMH < 2 ng/mL and BRCA mutations are at significantly higher risk of losing their ovarian reserve and developing amenorrhea.21 Because the oocytes of women with BRCA mutations are deficient in DNA repair as we have previously shown,19 they are more liable to death upon exposure to DNA-damaging cancer drugs such as cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin.22
Q7. What is the time limit for use of cryopreserved oocytes/tissue?
A: Under optimal storage conditions, cryopreserved oocytes/tissue can be utilized indefinitely without a negative effect on pregnancy outcomes.
Q8. What does the future hold for fertility preservation?
A: The future holds promise for both the medical and nonmedical (planned) utility of fertility preservation. With the former, we will see that the utility of OTC and orthotopic and heterotopic tissue transplantation increase as success rates improve. Improved neovascularizing agents will make the transplants last longer and enhance pregnancy outcomes.23,24 I see planned fertility preservation increasing, based on the experience gained from cancer patients and some preliminary experience with planned OTC, especially for healthy women who wish to consider delaying menopause.25,26
Because of attrition from apoptosis, approximately 2,000 oocytes are wasted per ovulation. Through calculation models, we predict that if an equivalent of one-third of a woman’s ovarian cortex can be cryopreserved (which may not significantly affect the age at natural menopause) before age 40 years, transplantation at perimenopause may provide sufficient primordial follicles to delay menopause for 5 years or longer.26 Because ovarian tissue can also be transplanted subcutaneously under local anesthesia, as we have shown,27,28 repeated heterotopic transplants can be performed in an office setting at reduced cost, invasiveness, and with enhanced effectiveness. We can expect increasing reports and progress on this planned use of OTC and transplantation in the future.
Dr. Oktay is professor of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive sciences and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
References
1. Lurie S. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992 Jan 9;43(1):1-7.
2. Oktay K and Karlikaya G. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1919.
3. Sonmezer and Oktay K. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(3):251-66.
4. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1994-2001.
5. Goldfarb SB et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;185:165-73.
6. Titus S et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 11;11(1):407.
7. Soleimani R et al. Aging (Albany NY). 2011 Aug;3(8):782-93.
8. Titus S et al. Sci Transl Med. 2013 Feb 13;5(172):172ra21.
9. Oktay KH et al. Fertil Steril. 2022 Jan 5:S0015-0282(21)02293-7.
10. Oktay K et al. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(1):181-92.
11. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1022–33.
12. Cil A et al. Fertil Steril. 2013 Aug;100(2):492-9.e3.
13. Goldman KN et al. Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):712-7.
14. Marin L and Oktay K. Scientific history of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. In: Oktay K (ed.), Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier;2022:1-10.
15. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 1;23(19):4347-53.
16. Kim JY et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Apr;101(4):1364-71.
17. Turan V et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:18.
18. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):240-4.
19. Lin W et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(10):3839-47.
20. Turan V et al. Reprod Sci. 2018;(25):26-32.
21. Oktay K et al. Presence of BRCA mutations and a pre-chemotherapy AMH level of < 2ng/mL strongly predict risk of amenorrhea in women with breast cancer P-291. Presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 78th annual meeting, Anaheim, Calif. Oct. 22-26, 2022.
22. Oktay KH et al. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(6):1251‐60.e1.
23. Soleimani R et al. PLoS One. 2011 Apr 29;6(4):e19475.
24. Marin L et al. Future aspects of ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation. In: Oktay K (ed.). Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier; 2022;223-30.
25. Oktay KH et al. Trends Mol Med. 2021;27(8):753-61.
26. Oktay K and Marin L. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation for delaying childbearing and menopause. In: Oktay, K. (Ed.), Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier;2022:195-204.
27. Oktay K et al. JAMA. 2001 Sep 26;286(12):1490-3.
28. Oktay K et al. Lancet. 2004 Mar 13;363(9412):837-40.
From the first obscure reference until the 19th century, the maternal mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy was nearly 100%. In the past 140 years, because of early detection and prompt surgical management, the mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy declined from 72%-90% in 1880 to 0.48% from 2004 to 2008.1 Given this remarkable reduction in mortality, the 20th-century approach to ectopic pregnancy evolved from preserving the life of the mother to preserving fertility by utilizing conservative treatment with methotrexate and/or tubal surgery.
Why the reference to ectopic pregnancy? Advances in oncology have comparably affected our approach to cancer patients. The increase in survival rates following a cancer diagnosis has fostered revolutionary developments in fertility preservation to obviate the effect of gonadotoxic therapy. We have evolved from shielding and transposing ovaries to ovarian tissue cryopreservation2,3 with rapid implementation.
One of the leaders in the field of female fertility preservation is Kutluk Oktay, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. I posed the following salient questions to him on the state of fertility preservation as well as expectations for the future.
Q1. What medication/treatment is gonadotoxic that warrants a consultation for fertility preservation?
A: While new drugs for cancer treatment continue to be approved and require testing for gonadotoxicity, evidence is clear on the damaging effects of alkylating agents such as cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, chlorambucil, and melphalan on primordial follicle reserve.4 A useful tool to determine the risk of alkylating agents affecting fertility is the Cyclophosphamide Equivalent Dose (CED) Calculator. Likewise, topoisomerase inhibitors, such as doxorubicin4 induce ovarian reserve damage by causing double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) in oocytes.5-7 Contrary to common belief, chemotherapy exposure suppresses the mechanisms that can initiate follicle growth.6 When DSBs occur, some oocytes may be able to repair such damage, otherwise apoptosis is triggered, which results in irreversible ovarian reserve loss.7 Younger individuals have much higher repair capacity, the magnitude of damage can be hard to predict, and it is variable.8,9 So, prior exposure to gonadotoxic drugs does not preclude consideration of fertility preservation.10
In addition, pelvic radiation, in a dose-dependent manner, causes severe DSBs and triggers the same cell suicide mechanisms while also potentially damaging uterine function. Additional information can be found in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Fertility Preservation Guidelines.4
Q2. What are the current options for fertility preservation in patients who will be exposed to gonadotoxic medication/treatment?
A: The current fertility preservation options for female patients faced with gonadotoxic treatments are embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC). Selection of fertility preservation is typically contingent upon the timetable of treatment. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation have been the standard of care. Recently, OTC had its experimental designation removed by American Society for Reproductive Medicine11 with the advantage of not requiring ovarian stimulation or sexual maturity; and it may to be performed while patients are receiving chemotherapy. If successful, OTC followed by orthotopic transplantation has the potential to restore natural ovarian function, thereby allowing spontaneous conception.10 Especially in young adults, ovarian reserve loss is fractional and can remain at reasonable levels after a few courses of chemotherapy. Ovarian stimulation is risky after the initiation of chemotherapy because of the severe DNA damage to oocytes of developing follicles and the associated poor response.7 Hence, ovarian stimulation should be initiated and completed before the initiation of chemotherapy.
Q3. How successful are the approved fertility preservation options in obtaining oocytes for future utilization by ART?
A: We have decades of experience with embryo cryopreservation and proven success rates that patients can check on the SART.org website for individual clinics. For oocyte cryopreservation, models are used to provide calculation estimates because the technique is less established.12 Although success rates are approaching those with fresh oocytes, they are still not equal.13 OTC followed by orthotopic tissue transplantation has the least outcomes data (approximately 200 reported livebirths to date with a 25% live birth rate per recipient worldwide10 since the first success was reported in 2000.2,14
With our robotic surgical approach to orthotopic and heterotopic ovarian tissue transplantation and the utility of neovascularizing agents, we have found that ovarian graft longevity is extended. Oocytes/embryos can be obtained and has resulted in one to two livebirths in all our recipients to date.10 Unfortunately, if any of the critical steps are not up to standards (freezing, thawing, or transplantation), success rates can dramatically decline. Therefore, providers and patients should seek centers with experience in all three stages of this procedure to maximize outcomes.
Q4. Are there concerns of increasing recurrence/mortality with fertility preservation given hormonal exposure?
A: Yes, this concern exists, at least in theory for estrogen-sensitive cancers, most commonly breast cancer. We developed ovarian stimulation protocols supplemented with anti-estrogen treatments (tamoxifen, an estrogen-receptor antagonist, and letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) that appear equally effective and reduce estrogen exposure in any susceptible cancer.15,16 Even in estrogen receptor–negative tumors, high estrogen exposure may activate non–estrogen receptor–dependent pathways. In addition, even those tumors that are practically deemed estrogen receptor negative may still contain a small percentage of estrogen receptors, which may become active at high estrogen levels.
Therefore, when we approach women with estrogen-sensitive cancers, e.g., breast and endometrial, we do not alter our approach based on receptor status. One exception occurs in women with BRCA mutations, especially the BRCA1, as they have 25% lower serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels,8,17 yield fewer oocytes in response to ovarian stimulation,18,19 and have lower fertilization rates and embryo numbers20 compared with those without the mutations.
Q5. Are all reproductive centers capable of offering fertility preservation? If not, how does a patient find a center?
A: All IVF clinics offer embryo and, presumably, oocyte cryopreservation. Pregnancy outcomes vary based on the center’s experience. Globally, major differences exist in the availability and competency of OTC along with the subsequent transplantation approach. A limited number of centers have competency in all aspects of OTC, i.e., cryopreservation, thawing, and transplantation. In general, fertility preservation patients have a multitude of medical issues that necessitate management expertise and the bandwidth to coordinate with cancer health professionals. The reproductive centers offering fertility preservation should be prepared to respond immediately and accommodate patients about to undergo gonadotoxic treatment.
Q6. How should a patient be counseled before proceeding with fertility preservation?
A: The candidate should be counseled on the likelihood of damage from gonadotoxic therapy and all fertility preservation options, on the basis of the urgency of treatment and the woman’s long-term goals. For example, the desire for a large family may compel a patient to undergo multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation or a combination of oocyte/embryo cryopreservation with OTC. In patients who are undergoing embryo cryopreservation, I recommend preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, although there are limitations to its application. Other novel pieces of information we are using in counseling are baseline AMH levels and BRCA mutation status for women with breast cancer. In an 8-year-long NIH-funded prospective longitudinal study we found that women with both baseline AMH < 2 ng/mL and BRCA mutations are at significantly higher risk of losing their ovarian reserve and developing amenorrhea.21 Because the oocytes of women with BRCA mutations are deficient in DNA repair as we have previously shown,19 they are more liable to death upon exposure to DNA-damaging cancer drugs such as cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin.22
Q7. What is the time limit for use of cryopreserved oocytes/tissue?
A: Under optimal storage conditions, cryopreserved oocytes/tissue can be utilized indefinitely without a negative effect on pregnancy outcomes.
Q8. What does the future hold for fertility preservation?
A: The future holds promise for both the medical and nonmedical (planned) utility of fertility preservation. With the former, we will see that the utility of OTC and orthotopic and heterotopic tissue transplantation increase as success rates improve. Improved neovascularizing agents will make the transplants last longer and enhance pregnancy outcomes.23,24 I see planned fertility preservation increasing, based on the experience gained from cancer patients and some preliminary experience with planned OTC, especially for healthy women who wish to consider delaying menopause.25,26
Because of attrition from apoptosis, approximately 2,000 oocytes are wasted per ovulation. Through calculation models, we predict that if an equivalent of one-third of a woman’s ovarian cortex can be cryopreserved (which may not significantly affect the age at natural menopause) before age 40 years, transplantation at perimenopause may provide sufficient primordial follicles to delay menopause for 5 years or longer.26 Because ovarian tissue can also be transplanted subcutaneously under local anesthesia, as we have shown,27,28 repeated heterotopic transplants can be performed in an office setting at reduced cost, invasiveness, and with enhanced effectiveness. We can expect increasing reports and progress on this planned use of OTC and transplantation in the future.
Dr. Oktay is professor of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive sciences and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
References
1. Lurie S. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992 Jan 9;43(1):1-7.
2. Oktay K and Karlikaya G. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1919.
3. Sonmezer and Oktay K. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(3):251-66.
4. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1994-2001.
5. Goldfarb SB et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;185:165-73.
6. Titus S et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 11;11(1):407.
7. Soleimani R et al. Aging (Albany NY). 2011 Aug;3(8):782-93.
8. Titus S et al. Sci Transl Med. 2013 Feb 13;5(172):172ra21.
9. Oktay KH et al. Fertil Steril. 2022 Jan 5:S0015-0282(21)02293-7.
10. Oktay K et al. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(1):181-92.
11. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1022–33.
12. Cil A et al. Fertil Steril. 2013 Aug;100(2):492-9.e3.
13. Goldman KN et al. Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):712-7.
14. Marin L and Oktay K. Scientific history of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. In: Oktay K (ed.), Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier;2022:1-10.
15. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 1;23(19):4347-53.
16. Kim JY et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Apr;101(4):1364-71.
17. Turan V et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:18.
18. Oktay K et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):240-4.
19. Lin W et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(10):3839-47.
20. Turan V et al. Reprod Sci. 2018;(25):26-32.
21. Oktay K et al. Presence of BRCA mutations and a pre-chemotherapy AMH level of < 2ng/mL strongly predict risk of amenorrhea in women with breast cancer P-291. Presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 78th annual meeting, Anaheim, Calif. Oct. 22-26, 2022.
22. Oktay KH et al. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(6):1251‐60.e1.
23. Soleimani R et al. PLoS One. 2011 Apr 29;6(4):e19475.
24. Marin L et al. Future aspects of ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation. In: Oktay K (ed.). Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier; 2022;223-30.
25. Oktay KH et al. Trends Mol Med. 2021;27(8):753-61.
26. Oktay K and Marin L. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation for delaying childbearing and menopause. In: Oktay, K. (Ed.), Principles and Practice of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation. Elsevier;2022:195-204.
27. Oktay K et al. JAMA. 2001 Sep 26;286(12):1490-3.
28. Oktay K et al. Lancet. 2004 Mar 13;363(9412):837-40.
Mastocytosis: Rare, underdiagnosed, potentially fatal
Nationwide, approximately 1,000 adults are diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis annually. This rare disease is a myeloid neoplasm with a highly variable phenotypic expression, in which abnormal mast cells proliferate and infiltrate organs and tissues. It swings widely from a nonadvanced form, composed of indolent or smoldering disease, to advanced disease that progresses to leukemia in 6% of cases.
More than 80% of systemic mastocytosis is driven by the KIT D816V mutation. Along with a host of other rare KIT mutations, KIT D816V activates KIT-receptor tyrosine kinase to trigger mast cell proliferation.
Dr. Gotlib could not be contacted for an interview. However, there are many good reasons to identify patients with systemic mastocytosis, according to Attilio Orazi, MD, professor and chair of the department of pathology at Texas Tech University, El Paso. The chief reason is that the patient may be in grave peril.
“The degree of heterogeneity is amazing. ... There’s very indolent [disease], which is really not a big deal. And then you have a disease in which you’re dead in 3 months,” Dr. Orazi said. “So you run the gamut between an indolent, no-problem cutaneous disease to a very nasty systemic, aggressive leukemia-like neoplasm.”
Since 2001, the diagnosis of mastocytosis has been guided by the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, or “Blue Book.” In 2022, Dr. Orazi along with 137 other senior experts, most of whom were involved in past editions of the Blue Book, published their own version: The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (the ICC 2022).
In September 2021, this group of specialists held a virtual/in-person advisory committee meeting at the University of Chicago to create the document. One factor in their decision to go it alone, Dr. Orazi said, was that WHO decided to proceed with the fifth edition of the Blue Book using its own internal editorial group without convening an advisory committee, despite repeated requests to do so.
ICC 2022 divides advanced systemic mastocytosis into three subtypes: aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Median survival is 3.5 years for patients with ASM, 2 years for those with SM-AHN and as low as 2 months for MCL.
The second key reason to increase awareness of mastocytosis among physicians, said Dr. Orazi, is that patients falling through the net are likely to be ambulatory, and their presentation can be “a little confusing.”
Patients with indolent disease are relatively straightforward to recognize, explained Dr. Orazi. Similarly, very sick patients with SM-AHN or MCL are easily recognized by hem-oncs.
“But if you see a patient in an ambulatory setting, in your clinic or whatever, and you’re suspicious, then you need to decide [how] you’re going to investigate that patient further,” he said, Dr. Orazi noted the next step is not always obvious, especially for primary-practice or internal medicine physicians likely to be unfamiliar with such a rare disease.
A practice survey published in 2022 by other researchers backed up Dr. Orazi’s remarks. The study found that community/solo-practice physicians were less likely to have tested systemic mastocytosis patients for KIT816V mutation than academic/specialty physicians (58% vs. 80%; P = .004; n = 111). Clinicians treating these patients estimated that it took an average of 8.5 months for a “typical” patient to receive the diagnosis from the time of symptom onset.
The research was headed by Ruben Mesa, MD, director of University of Texas Health, San Antonio, and funded by Blueprint Medicines, the manufacturer of avapritinib (Ayvakit), a new drug for the disease.
Dr. Orazi urged clinicians to have a high degree of suspicion for mastocytosis in a patient who walks into the clinic with any combination of the following: urticarial-type skin manifestations, especially if persistent into adulthood; history of undue reaction to an insect sting; a big spleen in a patient with a history of cutaneous flushing or rash; chronic diarrhea, especially if a biopsy has shown “too many mast cells” in the lamina propria of the small bowel; and positivity for KIT816V mutation.
Dr. Orazi stressed that the majority of patients will have indolent disease, but for the few patients for whom immediate treatment is essential, “the distinction between indolent and aggressive [disease] is really very, very important.”
Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis can now be effectively treated, following the arrival of midostaurin (Rydapt, Tauritmo) and avapritinib.
Midostaurin, a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis (ASM, SM-AHN, and MCL). Avapritinib, a selective kinase inhibitor of KIT816V and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha as well as multiple KIT exon 11, 11/17 and 17 mutants, gained the same indication in June 2021.
As with all rare diseases, it is challenging to obtain accurate numbers on how many patients are affected by systemic mastocytosis. The first population-based study of the disorder, presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2014 to estimate incidence at 0.046 per 10,000, which translates to 1,050 new adult cases per year. The study data have never been published in full.
How many of these cases are advanced disease? There are no U.S. data but extrapolating from a Danish registry study that found 82% of systemic mastocytosis cases to be indolent disease, the incidence of advanced systemic mastocytosis in the United States could be as low as 200 adults a year.
This information, in turn, suggests that identifying more patients with advanced disease would not only benefit those patients but would also benefit clinical trial investigators who are seeking the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Nationwide, five clinical trials are recruiting individuals with advanced systemic mastocytosis, collectively looking for 352 patients in the United States. Two of the studies focus on mast-cell activation (NCT0544944) and cutaneous mastocytoses (NCT04846348). Two trials in a range of hematological malignancies are testing bispecific antibodies flotetuzumab and MGD024 (both from Macrogenics; NCT04681105, NCT05362773).
Apex, a phase 2 study of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor bezuclastinib (a Cogent hopeful), is specifically focusing on advanced disease. Dr. Gotlib and coinvestigators are aiming for 140 participants.
As a pathologist, Dr. Orazi said he find mastocytosis fascinating because he believes he has “a truly useful role,” contrasting with some other hematological diseases in which the molecular profile rules.
“Pathology plays a major role here,” he explained, “because you have to correlate what you see at the microscope with the full clinical picture, selected laboratory tests such as CBC and serum tryptase, and molecular results. You often need integration through a pathologist to put all the pieces together.
“It’s easier to treat once you know exactly what disease you’re dealing with and whether it is an aggressive or indolent subtype,” Dr. Orazi concluded.
Dr. Orazi disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gotlib has disclosed ties with Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Incyte, and Kartos Therapeutics, and has led committees for Blueprint Medicine’s EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies, Deciphera’s Study Steering Committee for ripretinib in AdvSM, and the Central Response Review Committee for the phase 2 study of bezuclastinib in AdvSM.
Nationwide, approximately 1,000 adults are diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis annually. This rare disease is a myeloid neoplasm with a highly variable phenotypic expression, in which abnormal mast cells proliferate and infiltrate organs and tissues. It swings widely from a nonadvanced form, composed of indolent or smoldering disease, to advanced disease that progresses to leukemia in 6% of cases.
More than 80% of systemic mastocytosis is driven by the KIT D816V mutation. Along with a host of other rare KIT mutations, KIT D816V activates KIT-receptor tyrosine kinase to trigger mast cell proliferation.
Dr. Gotlib could not be contacted for an interview. However, there are many good reasons to identify patients with systemic mastocytosis, according to Attilio Orazi, MD, professor and chair of the department of pathology at Texas Tech University, El Paso. The chief reason is that the patient may be in grave peril.
“The degree of heterogeneity is amazing. ... There’s very indolent [disease], which is really not a big deal. And then you have a disease in which you’re dead in 3 months,” Dr. Orazi said. “So you run the gamut between an indolent, no-problem cutaneous disease to a very nasty systemic, aggressive leukemia-like neoplasm.”
Since 2001, the diagnosis of mastocytosis has been guided by the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, or “Blue Book.” In 2022, Dr. Orazi along with 137 other senior experts, most of whom were involved in past editions of the Blue Book, published their own version: The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (the ICC 2022).
In September 2021, this group of specialists held a virtual/in-person advisory committee meeting at the University of Chicago to create the document. One factor in their decision to go it alone, Dr. Orazi said, was that WHO decided to proceed with the fifth edition of the Blue Book using its own internal editorial group without convening an advisory committee, despite repeated requests to do so.
ICC 2022 divides advanced systemic mastocytosis into three subtypes: aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Median survival is 3.5 years for patients with ASM, 2 years for those with SM-AHN and as low as 2 months for MCL.
The second key reason to increase awareness of mastocytosis among physicians, said Dr. Orazi, is that patients falling through the net are likely to be ambulatory, and their presentation can be “a little confusing.”
Patients with indolent disease are relatively straightforward to recognize, explained Dr. Orazi. Similarly, very sick patients with SM-AHN or MCL are easily recognized by hem-oncs.
“But if you see a patient in an ambulatory setting, in your clinic or whatever, and you’re suspicious, then you need to decide [how] you’re going to investigate that patient further,” he said, Dr. Orazi noted the next step is not always obvious, especially for primary-practice or internal medicine physicians likely to be unfamiliar with such a rare disease.
A practice survey published in 2022 by other researchers backed up Dr. Orazi’s remarks. The study found that community/solo-practice physicians were less likely to have tested systemic mastocytosis patients for KIT816V mutation than academic/specialty physicians (58% vs. 80%; P = .004; n = 111). Clinicians treating these patients estimated that it took an average of 8.5 months for a “typical” patient to receive the diagnosis from the time of symptom onset.
The research was headed by Ruben Mesa, MD, director of University of Texas Health, San Antonio, and funded by Blueprint Medicines, the manufacturer of avapritinib (Ayvakit), a new drug for the disease.
Dr. Orazi urged clinicians to have a high degree of suspicion for mastocytosis in a patient who walks into the clinic with any combination of the following: urticarial-type skin manifestations, especially if persistent into adulthood; history of undue reaction to an insect sting; a big spleen in a patient with a history of cutaneous flushing or rash; chronic diarrhea, especially if a biopsy has shown “too many mast cells” in the lamina propria of the small bowel; and positivity for KIT816V mutation.
Dr. Orazi stressed that the majority of patients will have indolent disease, but for the few patients for whom immediate treatment is essential, “the distinction between indolent and aggressive [disease] is really very, very important.”
Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis can now be effectively treated, following the arrival of midostaurin (Rydapt, Tauritmo) and avapritinib.
Midostaurin, a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis (ASM, SM-AHN, and MCL). Avapritinib, a selective kinase inhibitor of KIT816V and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha as well as multiple KIT exon 11, 11/17 and 17 mutants, gained the same indication in June 2021.
As with all rare diseases, it is challenging to obtain accurate numbers on how many patients are affected by systemic mastocytosis. The first population-based study of the disorder, presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2014 to estimate incidence at 0.046 per 10,000, which translates to 1,050 new adult cases per year. The study data have never been published in full.
How many of these cases are advanced disease? There are no U.S. data but extrapolating from a Danish registry study that found 82% of systemic mastocytosis cases to be indolent disease, the incidence of advanced systemic mastocytosis in the United States could be as low as 200 adults a year.
This information, in turn, suggests that identifying more patients with advanced disease would not only benefit those patients but would also benefit clinical trial investigators who are seeking the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Nationwide, five clinical trials are recruiting individuals with advanced systemic mastocytosis, collectively looking for 352 patients in the United States. Two of the studies focus on mast-cell activation (NCT0544944) and cutaneous mastocytoses (NCT04846348). Two trials in a range of hematological malignancies are testing bispecific antibodies flotetuzumab and MGD024 (both from Macrogenics; NCT04681105, NCT05362773).
Apex, a phase 2 study of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor bezuclastinib (a Cogent hopeful), is specifically focusing on advanced disease. Dr. Gotlib and coinvestigators are aiming for 140 participants.
As a pathologist, Dr. Orazi said he find mastocytosis fascinating because he believes he has “a truly useful role,” contrasting with some other hematological diseases in which the molecular profile rules.
“Pathology plays a major role here,” he explained, “because you have to correlate what you see at the microscope with the full clinical picture, selected laboratory tests such as CBC and serum tryptase, and molecular results. You often need integration through a pathologist to put all the pieces together.
“It’s easier to treat once you know exactly what disease you’re dealing with and whether it is an aggressive or indolent subtype,” Dr. Orazi concluded.
Dr. Orazi disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gotlib has disclosed ties with Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Incyte, and Kartos Therapeutics, and has led committees for Blueprint Medicine’s EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies, Deciphera’s Study Steering Committee for ripretinib in AdvSM, and the Central Response Review Committee for the phase 2 study of bezuclastinib in AdvSM.
Nationwide, approximately 1,000 adults are diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis annually. This rare disease is a myeloid neoplasm with a highly variable phenotypic expression, in which abnormal mast cells proliferate and infiltrate organs and tissues. It swings widely from a nonadvanced form, composed of indolent or smoldering disease, to advanced disease that progresses to leukemia in 6% of cases.
More than 80% of systemic mastocytosis is driven by the KIT D816V mutation. Along with a host of other rare KIT mutations, KIT D816V activates KIT-receptor tyrosine kinase to trigger mast cell proliferation.
Dr. Gotlib could not be contacted for an interview. However, there are many good reasons to identify patients with systemic mastocytosis, according to Attilio Orazi, MD, professor and chair of the department of pathology at Texas Tech University, El Paso. The chief reason is that the patient may be in grave peril.
“The degree of heterogeneity is amazing. ... There’s very indolent [disease], which is really not a big deal. And then you have a disease in which you’re dead in 3 months,” Dr. Orazi said. “So you run the gamut between an indolent, no-problem cutaneous disease to a very nasty systemic, aggressive leukemia-like neoplasm.”
Since 2001, the diagnosis of mastocytosis has been guided by the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, or “Blue Book.” In 2022, Dr. Orazi along with 137 other senior experts, most of whom were involved in past editions of the Blue Book, published their own version: The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (the ICC 2022).
In September 2021, this group of specialists held a virtual/in-person advisory committee meeting at the University of Chicago to create the document. One factor in their decision to go it alone, Dr. Orazi said, was that WHO decided to proceed with the fifth edition of the Blue Book using its own internal editorial group without convening an advisory committee, despite repeated requests to do so.
ICC 2022 divides advanced systemic mastocytosis into three subtypes: aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Median survival is 3.5 years for patients with ASM, 2 years for those with SM-AHN and as low as 2 months for MCL.
The second key reason to increase awareness of mastocytosis among physicians, said Dr. Orazi, is that patients falling through the net are likely to be ambulatory, and their presentation can be “a little confusing.”
Patients with indolent disease are relatively straightforward to recognize, explained Dr. Orazi. Similarly, very sick patients with SM-AHN or MCL are easily recognized by hem-oncs.
“But if you see a patient in an ambulatory setting, in your clinic or whatever, and you’re suspicious, then you need to decide [how] you’re going to investigate that patient further,” he said, Dr. Orazi noted the next step is not always obvious, especially for primary-practice or internal medicine physicians likely to be unfamiliar with such a rare disease.
A practice survey published in 2022 by other researchers backed up Dr. Orazi’s remarks. The study found that community/solo-practice physicians were less likely to have tested systemic mastocytosis patients for KIT816V mutation than academic/specialty physicians (58% vs. 80%; P = .004; n = 111). Clinicians treating these patients estimated that it took an average of 8.5 months for a “typical” patient to receive the diagnosis from the time of symptom onset.
The research was headed by Ruben Mesa, MD, director of University of Texas Health, San Antonio, and funded by Blueprint Medicines, the manufacturer of avapritinib (Ayvakit), a new drug for the disease.
Dr. Orazi urged clinicians to have a high degree of suspicion for mastocytosis in a patient who walks into the clinic with any combination of the following: urticarial-type skin manifestations, especially if persistent into adulthood; history of undue reaction to an insect sting; a big spleen in a patient with a history of cutaneous flushing or rash; chronic diarrhea, especially if a biopsy has shown “too many mast cells” in the lamina propria of the small bowel; and positivity for KIT816V mutation.
Dr. Orazi stressed that the majority of patients will have indolent disease, but for the few patients for whom immediate treatment is essential, “the distinction between indolent and aggressive [disease] is really very, very important.”
Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis can now be effectively treated, following the arrival of midostaurin (Rydapt, Tauritmo) and avapritinib.
Midostaurin, a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis (ASM, SM-AHN, and MCL). Avapritinib, a selective kinase inhibitor of KIT816V and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha as well as multiple KIT exon 11, 11/17 and 17 mutants, gained the same indication in June 2021.
As with all rare diseases, it is challenging to obtain accurate numbers on how many patients are affected by systemic mastocytosis. The first population-based study of the disorder, presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2014 to estimate incidence at 0.046 per 10,000, which translates to 1,050 new adult cases per year. The study data have never been published in full.
How many of these cases are advanced disease? There are no U.S. data but extrapolating from a Danish registry study that found 82% of systemic mastocytosis cases to be indolent disease, the incidence of advanced systemic mastocytosis in the United States could be as low as 200 adults a year.
This information, in turn, suggests that identifying more patients with advanced disease would not only benefit those patients but would also benefit clinical trial investigators who are seeking the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Nationwide, five clinical trials are recruiting individuals with advanced systemic mastocytosis, collectively looking for 352 patients in the United States. Two of the studies focus on mast-cell activation (NCT0544944) and cutaneous mastocytoses (NCT04846348). Two trials in a range of hematological malignancies are testing bispecific antibodies flotetuzumab and MGD024 (both from Macrogenics; NCT04681105, NCT05362773).
Apex, a phase 2 study of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor bezuclastinib (a Cogent hopeful), is specifically focusing on advanced disease. Dr. Gotlib and coinvestigators are aiming for 140 participants.
As a pathologist, Dr. Orazi said he find mastocytosis fascinating because he believes he has “a truly useful role,” contrasting with some other hematological diseases in which the molecular profile rules.
“Pathology plays a major role here,” he explained, “because you have to correlate what you see at the microscope with the full clinical picture, selected laboratory tests such as CBC and serum tryptase, and molecular results. You often need integration through a pathologist to put all the pieces together.
“It’s easier to treat once you know exactly what disease you’re dealing with and whether it is an aggressive or indolent subtype,” Dr. Orazi concluded.
Dr. Orazi disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gotlib has disclosed ties with Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Incyte, and Kartos Therapeutics, and has led committees for Blueprint Medicine’s EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies, Deciphera’s Study Steering Committee for ripretinib in AdvSM, and the Central Response Review Committee for the phase 2 study of bezuclastinib in AdvSM.
PCSK9 inhibitors for severe COVID? Pilot trial signals of benefit
PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.
In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).
Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories
Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.
and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.
Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”
If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.
In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.
But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
A single injection
The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.
They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.
Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.
Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.
The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.
Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).
A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.
Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”
Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.
In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).
Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories
Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.
and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.
Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”
If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.
In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.
But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
A single injection
The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.
They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.
Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.
Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.
The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.
Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).
A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.
Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”
Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.
In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).
Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories
Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.
and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.
Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”
If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.
In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.
But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
A single injection
The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.
They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.
Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.
Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.
The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.
Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).
A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.
Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”
Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Microneedling With Bimatoprost to Treat Hypopigmented Skin Caused by Burn Scars
To the Editor:
Microneedling is a percutaneous collagen induction therapy frequently used in cosmetic dermatology to promote skin rejuvenation and hair growth and to treat scars by taking advantage of the body’s natural wound-healing cascade.1 The procedure works by generating thousands of microscopic wounds in the dermis with minimal damage to the epidermis, thus initiating the wound-healing cascade and subsequently promoting collagen production in a manner safe for all Fitzpatrick classification skin types.1-3 This therapy effectively treats scars by breaking down scarred collagen and replacing it with new healthy collagen. Microneedling also has application in drug delivery by increasing the permeability of the skin; the microwounds generated can serve as a portal for drug delivery.4
Bimatoprost is a prostaglandin analogue typically used to treat hypotrichosis and open-angle glaucoma.5-7 A known side effect of bimatoprost is hyperpigmentation of surrounding skin; the drug increases melanogenesis, melanocyte proliferation, and melanocyte dendricity, resulting in activation of the inflammatory response and subsequent prostaglandin release, which stimulates melanogenesis. This effect is similar to UV radiation–induced inflammation and hyperpigmentation.6,8
Capitalizing on this effect, a novel application of bimatoprost has been proposed—treating vitiligo, in which hypopigmentation results from destruction of melanocytes in certain areas of the skin. Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% utilized as an off-label treatment for vitiligo has been shown to notably increase melanogenesis and return pigmentation to hypopigmented areas.8-10
A 32-year-old Black woman presented to our clinic with a 40×15-cm scar that was marked by postinflammatory hypopigmentation from a second-degree burn on the right proximal arm. The patient had been burned 5 months prior by boiling water that was spilled on the arm while cooking. She had immediately sought treatment at an emergency department and subsequently in a burn unit, where the burn was debrided twice; medication was not prescribed to continue treatment. The patient reported that the scarring and hypopigmentation had taken a psychologic toll; her hope was to have pigmentation restored to the affected area to boost her confidence.
Physical examination revealed that the burn wound had healed but visible scarring and severe hypopigmentation due to destroyed melanocytes remained (Figure 1). To inhibit inflammation and stimulate repigmentation, we prescribed the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.1% to be applied daily to the affected area. The patient returned to the clinic 1 month later. Perifollicular hyperpigmentation was noted at the site of the scar.
Monthly microneedling sessions with bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% were started. To avoid damaging any potentially remaining unhealed hypodermis and vasculature, the first microneedling session was performed with 9 needles set at minimal needle depth and frequency. The number of needles and their depth and frequency gradually were increased with each subsequent treatment. The patient continued tacrolimus ointment 0.1% throughout the course of treatment.
For each microneedling procedure, a handheld motorized microneedling device was applied to the skin at a depth of 0.25 mm, which was gradually increased until pinpoint petechiae were achieved. Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% was then painted on the skin and allowed to absorb. Microneedling was performed again, ensuring that bimatoprost entered the skin in the area of the burn scar.
Microneedling procedures were performed monthly for 6 months, then once 3 months later, and once more 3 months later—8 treatments in total over the course of 1 year. Improvement in skin pigmentation was noted at each visit (Figure 2). Repigmentation was first noticed surrounding hair follicles; after later visits, it was observed that pigmentation began to spread from hair follicles to fill in remaining skin. The darkest areas of pigmentation were first noted around hair follicles; over time, melanocytes appeared to spontaneously regenerate and fill in surrounding areas as the scar continued to heal. The patient continued use of tacrolimus during the entire course of microneedling treatments and for the following 4 months. Sixteen months after initiation of treatment, the appearance of the skin was texturally smooth and returned to almost its original pigmentation (Figure 3).
We report a successful outcome in a patient with a hypopigmented burn scar who was treated with bimatoprost administered with traditional microneedling and alongside a tacrolimus regimen. Tacrolimus ointment inhibited the inflammatory response to allow melanocytes to heal and regenerate; bimatoprost and microneedling promoted hyperpigmentation of hair follicles in the affected area, eventually restoring pigmentation to the entire area. Our patient was extremely satisfied with the results of this combination treatment. She has reported feeling more confident going out and wearing short-sleeved clothing. Percutaneous drug delivery of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% combined with topical tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for skin repigmentation. Further investigation of this regimen is needed to develop standardized treatment protocols.
- Juhasz MLW, Cohen JL. Micro-needling for the treatment of scars: an update for clinicians. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2020;13:997-1003. doi:10.2147/CCID.S267192
- Alster TS, Li MKY. Micro-needling of scars: a large prospective study with long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:358-364. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006462
- Aust MC, Knobloch K, Reimers K, et al. Percutaneous collagen induction therapy: an alternative treatment for burn scars. Burns. 2010;36:836-843. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2009.11.014
- Kim Y-C, Park J-H, Prausnitz MR. Microneedles for drug and vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:1547-1568. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.04.005
- Doshi M, Edward DP, Osmanovic S. Clinical course of bimatoprost-induced periocular skin changes in Caucasians. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1961-1967. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.041
- Kapur R, Osmanovic S, Toyran S, et al. Bimatoprost-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation: histopathological study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1541-1546. doi:10.1001/archopht.123.11.1541
- Priluck JC, Fu S. Latisse-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:792-793. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.89
- Grimes PE. Bimatoprost 0.03% solution for the treatment of nonfacial vitiligo. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:703-710.
- Barbulescu C, Goldstein N, Roop D, et al. Harnessing the power of regenerative therapy for vitiligo and alopecia areata. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140: 29-37. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.03.1142
- Kanokrungsee S, Pruettivorawongse D, Rajatanavin N. Clinicaloutcomes of topical bimatoprost for nonsegmental facial vitiligo: a preliminary study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20:812-818. doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13648
To the Editor:
Microneedling is a percutaneous collagen induction therapy frequently used in cosmetic dermatology to promote skin rejuvenation and hair growth and to treat scars by taking advantage of the body’s natural wound-healing cascade.1 The procedure works by generating thousands of microscopic wounds in the dermis with minimal damage to the epidermis, thus initiating the wound-healing cascade and subsequently promoting collagen production in a manner safe for all Fitzpatrick classification skin types.1-3 This therapy effectively treats scars by breaking down scarred collagen and replacing it with new healthy collagen. Microneedling also has application in drug delivery by increasing the permeability of the skin; the microwounds generated can serve as a portal for drug delivery.4
Bimatoprost is a prostaglandin analogue typically used to treat hypotrichosis and open-angle glaucoma.5-7 A known side effect of bimatoprost is hyperpigmentation of surrounding skin; the drug increases melanogenesis, melanocyte proliferation, and melanocyte dendricity, resulting in activation of the inflammatory response and subsequent prostaglandin release, which stimulates melanogenesis. This effect is similar to UV radiation–induced inflammation and hyperpigmentation.6,8
Capitalizing on this effect, a novel application of bimatoprost has been proposed—treating vitiligo, in which hypopigmentation results from destruction of melanocytes in certain areas of the skin. Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% utilized as an off-label treatment for vitiligo has been shown to notably increase melanogenesis and return pigmentation to hypopigmented areas.8-10
A 32-year-old Black woman presented to our clinic with a 40×15-cm scar that was marked by postinflammatory hypopigmentation from a second-degree burn on the right proximal arm. The patient had been burned 5 months prior by boiling water that was spilled on the arm while cooking. She had immediately sought treatment at an emergency department and subsequently in a burn unit, where the burn was debrided twice; medication was not prescribed to continue treatment. The patient reported that the scarring and hypopigmentation had taken a psychologic toll; her hope was to have pigmentation restored to the affected area to boost her confidence.
Physical examination revealed that the burn wound had healed but visible scarring and severe hypopigmentation due to destroyed melanocytes remained (Figure 1). To inhibit inflammation and stimulate repigmentation, we prescribed the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.1% to be applied daily to the affected area. The patient returned to the clinic 1 month later. Perifollicular hyperpigmentation was noted at the site of the scar.
Monthly microneedling sessions with bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% were started. To avoid damaging any potentially remaining unhealed hypodermis and vasculature, the first microneedling session was performed with 9 needles set at minimal needle depth and frequency. The number of needles and their depth and frequency gradually were increased with each subsequent treatment. The patient continued tacrolimus ointment 0.1% throughout the course of treatment.
For each microneedling procedure, a handheld motorized microneedling device was applied to the skin at a depth of 0.25 mm, which was gradually increased until pinpoint petechiae were achieved. Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% was then painted on the skin and allowed to absorb. Microneedling was performed again, ensuring that bimatoprost entered the skin in the area of the burn scar.
Microneedling procedures were performed monthly for 6 months, then once 3 months later, and once more 3 months later—8 treatments in total over the course of 1 year. Improvement in skin pigmentation was noted at each visit (Figure 2). Repigmentation was first noticed surrounding hair follicles; after later visits, it was observed that pigmentation began to spread from hair follicles to fill in remaining skin. The darkest areas of pigmentation were first noted around hair follicles; over time, melanocytes appeared to spontaneously regenerate and fill in surrounding areas as the scar continued to heal. The patient continued use of tacrolimus during the entire course of microneedling treatments and for the following 4 months. Sixteen months after initiation of treatment, the appearance of the skin was texturally smooth and returned to almost its original pigmentation (Figure 3).
We report a successful outcome in a patient with a hypopigmented burn scar who was treated with bimatoprost administered with traditional microneedling and alongside a tacrolimus regimen. Tacrolimus ointment inhibited the inflammatory response to allow melanocytes to heal and regenerate; bimatoprost and microneedling promoted hyperpigmentation of hair follicles in the affected area, eventually restoring pigmentation to the entire area. Our patient was extremely satisfied with the results of this combination treatment. She has reported feeling more confident going out and wearing short-sleeved clothing. Percutaneous drug delivery of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% combined with topical tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for skin repigmentation. Further investigation of this regimen is needed to develop standardized treatment protocols.
To the Editor:
Microneedling is a percutaneous collagen induction therapy frequently used in cosmetic dermatology to promote skin rejuvenation and hair growth and to treat scars by taking advantage of the body’s natural wound-healing cascade.1 The procedure works by generating thousands of microscopic wounds in the dermis with minimal damage to the epidermis, thus initiating the wound-healing cascade and subsequently promoting collagen production in a manner safe for all Fitzpatrick classification skin types.1-3 This therapy effectively treats scars by breaking down scarred collagen and replacing it with new healthy collagen. Microneedling also has application in drug delivery by increasing the permeability of the skin; the microwounds generated can serve as a portal for drug delivery.4
Bimatoprost is a prostaglandin analogue typically used to treat hypotrichosis and open-angle glaucoma.5-7 A known side effect of bimatoprost is hyperpigmentation of surrounding skin; the drug increases melanogenesis, melanocyte proliferation, and melanocyte dendricity, resulting in activation of the inflammatory response and subsequent prostaglandin release, which stimulates melanogenesis. This effect is similar to UV radiation–induced inflammation and hyperpigmentation.6,8
Capitalizing on this effect, a novel application of bimatoprost has been proposed—treating vitiligo, in which hypopigmentation results from destruction of melanocytes in certain areas of the skin. Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% utilized as an off-label treatment for vitiligo has been shown to notably increase melanogenesis and return pigmentation to hypopigmented areas.8-10
A 32-year-old Black woman presented to our clinic with a 40×15-cm scar that was marked by postinflammatory hypopigmentation from a second-degree burn on the right proximal arm. The patient had been burned 5 months prior by boiling water that was spilled on the arm while cooking. She had immediately sought treatment at an emergency department and subsequently in a burn unit, where the burn was debrided twice; medication was not prescribed to continue treatment. The patient reported that the scarring and hypopigmentation had taken a psychologic toll; her hope was to have pigmentation restored to the affected area to boost her confidence.
Physical examination revealed that the burn wound had healed but visible scarring and severe hypopigmentation due to destroyed melanocytes remained (Figure 1). To inhibit inflammation and stimulate repigmentation, we prescribed the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.1% to be applied daily to the affected area. The patient returned to the clinic 1 month later. Perifollicular hyperpigmentation was noted at the site of the scar.
Monthly microneedling sessions with bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% were started. To avoid damaging any potentially remaining unhealed hypodermis and vasculature, the first microneedling session was performed with 9 needles set at minimal needle depth and frequency. The number of needles and their depth and frequency gradually were increased with each subsequent treatment. The patient continued tacrolimus ointment 0.1% throughout the course of treatment.
For each microneedling procedure, a handheld motorized microneedling device was applied to the skin at a depth of 0.25 mm, which was gradually increased until pinpoint petechiae were achieved. Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% was then painted on the skin and allowed to absorb. Microneedling was performed again, ensuring that bimatoprost entered the skin in the area of the burn scar.
Microneedling procedures were performed monthly for 6 months, then once 3 months later, and once more 3 months later—8 treatments in total over the course of 1 year. Improvement in skin pigmentation was noted at each visit (Figure 2). Repigmentation was first noticed surrounding hair follicles; after later visits, it was observed that pigmentation began to spread from hair follicles to fill in remaining skin. The darkest areas of pigmentation were first noted around hair follicles; over time, melanocytes appeared to spontaneously regenerate and fill in surrounding areas as the scar continued to heal. The patient continued use of tacrolimus during the entire course of microneedling treatments and for the following 4 months. Sixteen months after initiation of treatment, the appearance of the skin was texturally smooth and returned to almost its original pigmentation (Figure 3).
We report a successful outcome in a patient with a hypopigmented burn scar who was treated with bimatoprost administered with traditional microneedling and alongside a tacrolimus regimen. Tacrolimus ointment inhibited the inflammatory response to allow melanocytes to heal and regenerate; bimatoprost and microneedling promoted hyperpigmentation of hair follicles in the affected area, eventually restoring pigmentation to the entire area. Our patient was extremely satisfied with the results of this combination treatment. She has reported feeling more confident going out and wearing short-sleeved clothing. Percutaneous drug delivery of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.3% combined with topical tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for skin repigmentation. Further investigation of this regimen is needed to develop standardized treatment protocols.
- Juhasz MLW, Cohen JL. Micro-needling for the treatment of scars: an update for clinicians. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2020;13:997-1003. doi:10.2147/CCID.S267192
- Alster TS, Li MKY. Micro-needling of scars: a large prospective study with long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:358-364. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006462
- Aust MC, Knobloch K, Reimers K, et al. Percutaneous collagen induction therapy: an alternative treatment for burn scars. Burns. 2010;36:836-843. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2009.11.014
- Kim Y-C, Park J-H, Prausnitz MR. Microneedles for drug and vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:1547-1568. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.04.005
- Doshi M, Edward DP, Osmanovic S. Clinical course of bimatoprost-induced periocular skin changes in Caucasians. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1961-1967. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.041
- Kapur R, Osmanovic S, Toyran S, et al. Bimatoprost-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation: histopathological study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1541-1546. doi:10.1001/archopht.123.11.1541
- Priluck JC, Fu S. Latisse-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:792-793. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.89
- Grimes PE. Bimatoprost 0.03% solution for the treatment of nonfacial vitiligo. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:703-710.
- Barbulescu C, Goldstein N, Roop D, et al. Harnessing the power of regenerative therapy for vitiligo and alopecia areata. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140: 29-37. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.03.1142
- Kanokrungsee S, Pruettivorawongse D, Rajatanavin N. Clinicaloutcomes of topical bimatoprost for nonsegmental facial vitiligo: a preliminary study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20:812-818. doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13648
- Juhasz MLW, Cohen JL. Micro-needling for the treatment of scars: an update for clinicians. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2020;13:997-1003. doi:10.2147/CCID.S267192
- Alster TS, Li MKY. Micro-needling of scars: a large prospective study with long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:358-364. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006462
- Aust MC, Knobloch K, Reimers K, et al. Percutaneous collagen induction therapy: an alternative treatment for burn scars. Burns. 2010;36:836-843. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2009.11.014
- Kim Y-C, Park J-H, Prausnitz MR. Microneedles for drug and vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:1547-1568. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.04.005
- Doshi M, Edward DP, Osmanovic S. Clinical course of bimatoprost-induced periocular skin changes in Caucasians. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1961-1967. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.041
- Kapur R, Osmanovic S, Toyran S, et al. Bimatoprost-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation: histopathological study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1541-1546. doi:10.1001/archopht.123.11.1541
- Priluck JC, Fu S. Latisse-induced periocular skin hyperpigmentation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:792-793. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.89
- Grimes PE. Bimatoprost 0.03% solution for the treatment of nonfacial vitiligo. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:703-710.
- Barbulescu C, Goldstein N, Roop D, et al. Harnessing the power of regenerative therapy for vitiligo and alopecia areata. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140: 29-37. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.03.1142
- Kanokrungsee S, Pruettivorawongse D, Rajatanavin N. Clinicaloutcomes of topical bimatoprost for nonsegmental facial vitiligo: a preliminary study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20:812-818. doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13648
PRACTICE POINTS
- Microneedling is a percutaneous collagen induction therapy that also may be used in drug delivery.
- Hypopigmentation can cause considerable distress for patients with skin of color.
- Percutaneous drug delivery of bimatoprost may be helpful in skin repigmentation.
Guidelines recommend CBT alone for mild acute depression, more options for more severe cases
The guidelines also state that patients with mild depression should start with CBT alone, and if a patient with moderate to severe depression prefers, they can use a combination of both CBT and an SGA.
These nuanced recommendations contrast sharply with the 2016 ACP guidelines for depression, which lumped all stages and severity levels together, and came with just one recommendation: Clinicians should choose between CBT and an SGA.
More data have come to light over the years, requiring the present update, reported lead author Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president of Clinical Policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP, and adjunct faculty at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
In addition to the focus on acute depression, Dr. Qaseem and colleagues highlighted the new guidelines' “consideration of patient values and preferences, and costs,” as well as responses to therapy.
Recommendations were derived from a network meta-analysis that included studies evaluating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, the authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. They compared effectiveness across a range of SGAs, “including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; and others such as bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.”
This analysis yielded three pieces of clinical advice.
First, patients in the acute phase of mild depression should receive CBT alone as their initial treatment.
Dr. Qaseem and colleagues noted that many depression studies for pharmacologic therapies excluded these patients in favor of those with moderate to severe depression, leaving an evidence gap.
“Furthermore, the Clinical Guidelines Committee had concerns about adverse effects of SGAs in these patients and suggests that the use of SGAs as initial treatment of these patients should be based on additional considerations, such as limited access to or cost of CBT, history of moderate or severe major depressive disorder, or patient preferences,” they added.
The committee’s next recommendation, based on moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that CBT alone or an SGA alone should be considered for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe depression. This call for monotherapy is balanced by a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence that the same group may benefit from initial combination therapy with both CBT and an SGA.
“The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with CBT versus SGAs, or combination therapy, should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients’ specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences,” the guidelines state.
The third and final recommendation offers an algorithm for patients who do not respond to initial therapy with an SGA. Multiple pathways are provided: Switch to CBT or augment with CBT; or switch to a different SGA or augment with a second pharmacologic therapy, such as mirtazapine, bupropion, or buspirone.
“These second-line treatment strategies show similar efficacy when compared with each other,” the guidelines committee noted.
Again, the guidelines suggest that second-line choices should be personalized based on the various factors previously discussed.
A timely update
“The new guideline is very different from the last guideline,” said Ryan Mire, MD, president of the ACP and practicing internal medicine physician in Nashville, Tenn. in a written comment. “ACP decided to update the depression guidelines with a focus on acute depression because approximately 70% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission and remain in the acute phase after the initial pharmacologic treatment attempt. In addition, there is new evidence on second-line treatments since the 2016 ACP guideline was published.”
Neil S. Skolnik, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the guidelines offer a necessary and fresh perspective on caring for patients with depression.
“These guidelines are a helpful update, assuring us that we are using the latest, evidence-based therapies, and [they] are written in a practical, easy-to-implement manner,” Dr. Skolnik said in a written comment.
“First, the guidelines reaffirm that CBT is an effective first-line option, with or without the concurrent use of an SGA,” Dr. Skolnik said, noting that CBT alone may reduce likelihood of recurrence, compared with an SGA alone. “Many patients do not like the idea of medication, or the potential side effects of medications, and CBT is an evidenced-based approach that can be very helpful for patients.”
Dr. Skolnik also applauded the guidelines authors for offering a clear path forward for patients who do not have full remission after treatment – a common clinical scenario.
He went on to offer some more detailed steps forward.
“If someone chooses to be treated with an SGA alone and has not had much response at all to an initial SGA, usually a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, I’ll usually switch to a different SSRI or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) and/or add CBT,” Dr. Skolnik said. “If they have had a partial response, I’ll often encourage CBT and consider the addition of augmentation with an additional medication as discussed in the guidelines.”
Valuable despite the gaps
Other experts expressed mixed impressions of the update, noting both highs and lows.
“Although [this guideline] has some gaps, it is more valuable in several ways than other widely consulted practice guidelines for depression,” wrote Miriam Shuchman, MD and Elia Abi-Jaoude, MSc, MD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.
Specifically, they praised the publication’s focus on shared decision-making in the treatment planning process.
“This effort to respond to patient preferences is crucial and may even increase the chance that patients will improve with treatment,” they wrote.
They also applauded the ACP’s efforts to recuse any committee members who may have had conflicts of interest “that could affect their judgment about treatments for depression.”
After highlighting these attributes, Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude noted that the guidelines still contain “significant gaps.”
Foremost, they pointed out the guidelines' emphasis on CBT to the exclusion of other nonpharmacologic options.
“The guideline does patients a disservice by leaving out several nonmedication treatment options that clinicians can offer as first- or second-line therapies,” they wrote.
This oversight may increase risk that patients simply hop from one SGA to another, which is a common, and often ineffective, strategy, according to Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude.
“Patients often go from one drug to the next in the hopes of landing on one that ‘works,’ ” the editorialists wrote. “This narrow clinical approach of pursuing medication-based treatments ignores the ways difficulties in a person’s work or relationships may contribute to their struggles with depression. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of the social context of mental health, clinicians may need to consider other forms of support and tailor prescribing to what is most relevant and accessible for a particular patient.”
Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude went on to suggest several nonpharmacologic options beyond CBT, including interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, problem solving, behavioral activation, and guided self-help.
The other key gap they pointed out relates to withdrawal.
Although the guideline does advise physicians to taper antidepressants to reduce risk of withdrawal, the editorialists suggested that this recommendation lacked sufficient emphasis, as it can be a particularly difficult period in the treatment process.
“Tapering of an antidepressant may need to be done over months or years, not weeks, and a patient may need to visit a compounding pharmacy to obtain doses of a second-generation antidepressant not marketed by drug manufacturers so that prescriptions can be tapered even more slowly,” they suggested.
Financial costs remain unclear
Beyond the above medical considerations, one other piece of the depression puzzle remains unsolved: cost.
In a simultaneously published rapid review, Andreea Dobrescu, MD, PhD, of Cochrane Austria, and colleagues evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies.
For most comparisons, evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion, although they suggested that CBT may be more cost effective at the 5-year mark.
“For most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for major depressive disorder, evidence was missing or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of first- or second-step treatments for MDD,” Dr. Dobrescu and colleagues wrote. “The strongest evidence (albeit still low certainty of evidence) was for the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with SGA as a first-step treatment over a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, this evidence should also be interpreted cautiously considering it is based on a single study.”
When asked about the financial findings, Dr. Mire agreed that more data are needed, especially because CBT and SGA costs range widely. He suggested that cost, for each patient, should be considered in the personalized approach now highlighted by the new guidelines.
The guidelines and the Cochrane cost-effectiveness study were supported by the ACP. The guidelines' authors and other individuals quoted in this article reported no conflicts of interest.
The guidelines also state that patients with mild depression should start with CBT alone, and if a patient with moderate to severe depression prefers, they can use a combination of both CBT and an SGA.
These nuanced recommendations contrast sharply with the 2016 ACP guidelines for depression, which lumped all stages and severity levels together, and came with just one recommendation: Clinicians should choose between CBT and an SGA.
More data have come to light over the years, requiring the present update, reported lead author Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president of Clinical Policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP, and adjunct faculty at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
In addition to the focus on acute depression, Dr. Qaseem and colleagues highlighted the new guidelines' “consideration of patient values and preferences, and costs,” as well as responses to therapy.
Recommendations were derived from a network meta-analysis that included studies evaluating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, the authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. They compared effectiveness across a range of SGAs, “including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; and others such as bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.”
This analysis yielded three pieces of clinical advice.
First, patients in the acute phase of mild depression should receive CBT alone as their initial treatment.
Dr. Qaseem and colleagues noted that many depression studies for pharmacologic therapies excluded these patients in favor of those with moderate to severe depression, leaving an evidence gap.
“Furthermore, the Clinical Guidelines Committee had concerns about adverse effects of SGAs in these patients and suggests that the use of SGAs as initial treatment of these patients should be based on additional considerations, such as limited access to or cost of CBT, history of moderate or severe major depressive disorder, or patient preferences,” they added.
The committee’s next recommendation, based on moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that CBT alone or an SGA alone should be considered for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe depression. This call for monotherapy is balanced by a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence that the same group may benefit from initial combination therapy with both CBT and an SGA.
“The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with CBT versus SGAs, or combination therapy, should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients’ specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences,” the guidelines state.
The third and final recommendation offers an algorithm for patients who do not respond to initial therapy with an SGA. Multiple pathways are provided: Switch to CBT or augment with CBT; or switch to a different SGA or augment with a second pharmacologic therapy, such as mirtazapine, bupropion, or buspirone.
“These second-line treatment strategies show similar efficacy when compared with each other,” the guidelines committee noted.
Again, the guidelines suggest that second-line choices should be personalized based on the various factors previously discussed.
A timely update
“The new guideline is very different from the last guideline,” said Ryan Mire, MD, president of the ACP and practicing internal medicine physician in Nashville, Tenn. in a written comment. “ACP decided to update the depression guidelines with a focus on acute depression because approximately 70% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission and remain in the acute phase after the initial pharmacologic treatment attempt. In addition, there is new evidence on second-line treatments since the 2016 ACP guideline was published.”
Neil S. Skolnik, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the guidelines offer a necessary and fresh perspective on caring for patients with depression.
“These guidelines are a helpful update, assuring us that we are using the latest, evidence-based therapies, and [they] are written in a practical, easy-to-implement manner,” Dr. Skolnik said in a written comment.
“First, the guidelines reaffirm that CBT is an effective first-line option, with or without the concurrent use of an SGA,” Dr. Skolnik said, noting that CBT alone may reduce likelihood of recurrence, compared with an SGA alone. “Many patients do not like the idea of medication, or the potential side effects of medications, and CBT is an evidenced-based approach that can be very helpful for patients.”
Dr. Skolnik also applauded the guidelines authors for offering a clear path forward for patients who do not have full remission after treatment – a common clinical scenario.
He went on to offer some more detailed steps forward.
“If someone chooses to be treated with an SGA alone and has not had much response at all to an initial SGA, usually a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, I’ll usually switch to a different SSRI or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) and/or add CBT,” Dr. Skolnik said. “If they have had a partial response, I’ll often encourage CBT and consider the addition of augmentation with an additional medication as discussed in the guidelines.”
Valuable despite the gaps
Other experts expressed mixed impressions of the update, noting both highs and lows.
“Although [this guideline] has some gaps, it is more valuable in several ways than other widely consulted practice guidelines for depression,” wrote Miriam Shuchman, MD and Elia Abi-Jaoude, MSc, MD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.
Specifically, they praised the publication’s focus on shared decision-making in the treatment planning process.
“This effort to respond to patient preferences is crucial and may even increase the chance that patients will improve with treatment,” they wrote.
They also applauded the ACP’s efforts to recuse any committee members who may have had conflicts of interest “that could affect their judgment about treatments for depression.”
After highlighting these attributes, Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude noted that the guidelines still contain “significant gaps.”
Foremost, they pointed out the guidelines' emphasis on CBT to the exclusion of other nonpharmacologic options.
“The guideline does patients a disservice by leaving out several nonmedication treatment options that clinicians can offer as first- or second-line therapies,” they wrote.
This oversight may increase risk that patients simply hop from one SGA to another, which is a common, and often ineffective, strategy, according to Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude.
“Patients often go from one drug to the next in the hopes of landing on one that ‘works,’ ” the editorialists wrote. “This narrow clinical approach of pursuing medication-based treatments ignores the ways difficulties in a person’s work or relationships may contribute to their struggles with depression. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of the social context of mental health, clinicians may need to consider other forms of support and tailor prescribing to what is most relevant and accessible for a particular patient.”
Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude went on to suggest several nonpharmacologic options beyond CBT, including interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, problem solving, behavioral activation, and guided self-help.
The other key gap they pointed out relates to withdrawal.
Although the guideline does advise physicians to taper antidepressants to reduce risk of withdrawal, the editorialists suggested that this recommendation lacked sufficient emphasis, as it can be a particularly difficult period in the treatment process.
“Tapering of an antidepressant may need to be done over months or years, not weeks, and a patient may need to visit a compounding pharmacy to obtain doses of a second-generation antidepressant not marketed by drug manufacturers so that prescriptions can be tapered even more slowly,” they suggested.
Financial costs remain unclear
Beyond the above medical considerations, one other piece of the depression puzzle remains unsolved: cost.
In a simultaneously published rapid review, Andreea Dobrescu, MD, PhD, of Cochrane Austria, and colleagues evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies.
For most comparisons, evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion, although they suggested that CBT may be more cost effective at the 5-year mark.
“For most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for major depressive disorder, evidence was missing or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of first- or second-step treatments for MDD,” Dr. Dobrescu and colleagues wrote. “The strongest evidence (albeit still low certainty of evidence) was for the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with SGA as a first-step treatment over a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, this evidence should also be interpreted cautiously considering it is based on a single study.”
When asked about the financial findings, Dr. Mire agreed that more data are needed, especially because CBT and SGA costs range widely. He suggested that cost, for each patient, should be considered in the personalized approach now highlighted by the new guidelines.
The guidelines and the Cochrane cost-effectiveness study were supported by the ACP. The guidelines' authors and other individuals quoted in this article reported no conflicts of interest.
The guidelines also state that patients with mild depression should start with CBT alone, and if a patient with moderate to severe depression prefers, they can use a combination of both CBT and an SGA.
These nuanced recommendations contrast sharply with the 2016 ACP guidelines for depression, which lumped all stages and severity levels together, and came with just one recommendation: Clinicians should choose between CBT and an SGA.
More data have come to light over the years, requiring the present update, reported lead author Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president of Clinical Policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP, and adjunct faculty at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
In addition to the focus on acute depression, Dr. Qaseem and colleagues highlighted the new guidelines' “consideration of patient values and preferences, and costs,” as well as responses to therapy.
Recommendations were derived from a network meta-analysis that included studies evaluating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, the authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. They compared effectiveness across a range of SGAs, “including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; and others such as bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.”
This analysis yielded three pieces of clinical advice.
First, patients in the acute phase of mild depression should receive CBT alone as their initial treatment.
Dr. Qaseem and colleagues noted that many depression studies for pharmacologic therapies excluded these patients in favor of those with moderate to severe depression, leaving an evidence gap.
“Furthermore, the Clinical Guidelines Committee had concerns about adverse effects of SGAs in these patients and suggests that the use of SGAs as initial treatment of these patients should be based on additional considerations, such as limited access to or cost of CBT, history of moderate or severe major depressive disorder, or patient preferences,” they added.
The committee’s next recommendation, based on moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that CBT alone or an SGA alone should be considered for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe depression. This call for monotherapy is balanced by a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence that the same group may benefit from initial combination therapy with both CBT and an SGA.
“The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with CBT versus SGAs, or combination therapy, should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients’ specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences,” the guidelines state.
The third and final recommendation offers an algorithm for patients who do not respond to initial therapy with an SGA. Multiple pathways are provided: Switch to CBT or augment with CBT; or switch to a different SGA or augment with a second pharmacologic therapy, such as mirtazapine, bupropion, or buspirone.
“These second-line treatment strategies show similar efficacy when compared with each other,” the guidelines committee noted.
Again, the guidelines suggest that second-line choices should be personalized based on the various factors previously discussed.
A timely update
“The new guideline is very different from the last guideline,” said Ryan Mire, MD, president of the ACP and practicing internal medicine physician in Nashville, Tenn. in a written comment. “ACP decided to update the depression guidelines with a focus on acute depression because approximately 70% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission and remain in the acute phase after the initial pharmacologic treatment attempt. In addition, there is new evidence on second-line treatments since the 2016 ACP guideline was published.”
Neil S. Skolnik, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the guidelines offer a necessary and fresh perspective on caring for patients with depression.
“These guidelines are a helpful update, assuring us that we are using the latest, evidence-based therapies, and [they] are written in a practical, easy-to-implement manner,” Dr. Skolnik said in a written comment.
“First, the guidelines reaffirm that CBT is an effective first-line option, with or without the concurrent use of an SGA,” Dr. Skolnik said, noting that CBT alone may reduce likelihood of recurrence, compared with an SGA alone. “Many patients do not like the idea of medication, or the potential side effects of medications, and CBT is an evidenced-based approach that can be very helpful for patients.”
Dr. Skolnik also applauded the guidelines authors for offering a clear path forward for patients who do not have full remission after treatment – a common clinical scenario.
He went on to offer some more detailed steps forward.
“If someone chooses to be treated with an SGA alone and has not had much response at all to an initial SGA, usually a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, I’ll usually switch to a different SSRI or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) and/or add CBT,” Dr. Skolnik said. “If they have had a partial response, I’ll often encourage CBT and consider the addition of augmentation with an additional medication as discussed in the guidelines.”
Valuable despite the gaps
Other experts expressed mixed impressions of the update, noting both highs and lows.
“Although [this guideline] has some gaps, it is more valuable in several ways than other widely consulted practice guidelines for depression,” wrote Miriam Shuchman, MD and Elia Abi-Jaoude, MSc, MD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.
Specifically, they praised the publication’s focus on shared decision-making in the treatment planning process.
“This effort to respond to patient preferences is crucial and may even increase the chance that patients will improve with treatment,” they wrote.
They also applauded the ACP’s efforts to recuse any committee members who may have had conflicts of interest “that could affect their judgment about treatments for depression.”
After highlighting these attributes, Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude noted that the guidelines still contain “significant gaps.”
Foremost, they pointed out the guidelines' emphasis on CBT to the exclusion of other nonpharmacologic options.
“The guideline does patients a disservice by leaving out several nonmedication treatment options that clinicians can offer as first- or second-line therapies,” they wrote.
This oversight may increase risk that patients simply hop from one SGA to another, which is a common, and often ineffective, strategy, according to Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude.
“Patients often go from one drug to the next in the hopes of landing on one that ‘works,’ ” the editorialists wrote. “This narrow clinical approach of pursuing medication-based treatments ignores the ways difficulties in a person’s work or relationships may contribute to their struggles with depression. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of the social context of mental health, clinicians may need to consider other forms of support and tailor prescribing to what is most relevant and accessible for a particular patient.”
Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude went on to suggest several nonpharmacologic options beyond CBT, including interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, problem solving, behavioral activation, and guided self-help.
The other key gap they pointed out relates to withdrawal.
Although the guideline does advise physicians to taper antidepressants to reduce risk of withdrawal, the editorialists suggested that this recommendation lacked sufficient emphasis, as it can be a particularly difficult period in the treatment process.
“Tapering of an antidepressant may need to be done over months or years, not weeks, and a patient may need to visit a compounding pharmacy to obtain doses of a second-generation antidepressant not marketed by drug manufacturers so that prescriptions can be tapered even more slowly,” they suggested.
Financial costs remain unclear
Beyond the above medical considerations, one other piece of the depression puzzle remains unsolved: cost.
In a simultaneously published rapid review, Andreea Dobrescu, MD, PhD, of Cochrane Austria, and colleagues evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies.
For most comparisons, evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion, although they suggested that CBT may be more cost effective at the 5-year mark.
“For most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for major depressive disorder, evidence was missing or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of first- or second-step treatments for MDD,” Dr. Dobrescu and colleagues wrote. “The strongest evidence (albeit still low certainty of evidence) was for the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with SGA as a first-step treatment over a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, this evidence should also be interpreted cautiously considering it is based on a single study.”
When asked about the financial findings, Dr. Mire agreed that more data are needed, especially because CBT and SGA costs range widely. He suggested that cost, for each patient, should be considered in the personalized approach now highlighted by the new guidelines.
The guidelines and the Cochrane cost-effectiveness study were supported by the ACP. The guidelines' authors and other individuals quoted in this article reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
FDA approves new type 2 diabetes drug bexagliflozin
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2).
In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.
In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.
“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.
“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”
As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.
Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.
Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2).
In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.
In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.
“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.
“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”
As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.
Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.
Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2).
In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.
In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.
“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.
“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”
As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.
Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.
Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding venetoclax improves ibrutinib outcomes in CLL
Investigators led by Philip Thompson, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the center, explained that CLL patients receiving ibrutinib, a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor, “rarely achieve complete remission with undetectable measurable residual disease,” so they stay on the costly treatment indefinitely or until disease progression or accumulating adverse events force a switch to venetoclax.
Using the two agents together, instead of consecutively, may allow strong responders to stop treatment altogether and suboptimal responders to have longer remissions, they said.
“We would not advocate prolonged Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use prior to starting venetoclax in treatment-naive patients, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3-month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated,” the team said.
However, the investigators noted that their “study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy.” Randomized trials are looking into the matter. The study was published recently as a preprint on ResearchSquare.com and has not been peer reviewed.
Complete remission in over half
The 45 adult subjects had one or more high-risk features for CLL progression and had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib at 140-420 mg once daily, depending on tolerance. They had bone marrow detectable disease at study entry but did not meet criteria for progression. Median duration of ibrutinib at baseline was 32 months, and about half the subjects were on it as their initial therapy.
Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor with a completely different mechanisms of action, was added to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, escalated up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily.
On intention-to-treat analysis, venetoclax add-on improved ibrutinib response to complete remission in 55% of patients; complete remission was defined as less than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes in bone marrow on two consecutive occasions 6 months apart.
The rate of undetectable bone marrow disease was 57% after 1 year of combined treatment and 71% after venetoclax completion, at which point 23 patients with undetectable disease stopped ibrutinib along with venetoclax.
Five patients had disease progression at a median of 41 months after venetoclax initiation, one during combined therapy, three during ibrutinib maintenance afterward, and one with Richter transformation after complete remission and discontinuation of all treatment. No patient had died from CLL.
“There has so far been no significant difference noted in” time to residual disease re-emergence, the team said, based on whether or not patients continued ibrutinib after venetoclax add-on.
There was no significant difference in the rate of bone marrow clearance according to the presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotypes, or prior treatment status.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia in 20% of patients. Nine patients developed nonmelanoma skin cancer during the trial; six were diagnosed with other solid tumors; three came down with grade 3 infections, and two developed myelodysplastic syndrome, both with a prior history of chemotherapy.
No one stopped venetoclax because of toxicity, but about a third of subjects required dose reductions, most often because of neutropenia.
The study was funded by AbbVie, which is commercializing venetoclax along with Genentech. Investigators disclosed ties to both companies and many others. Dr. Thompson disclosed ties to AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Beigene, and Genentech.
Investigators led by Philip Thompson, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the center, explained that CLL patients receiving ibrutinib, a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor, “rarely achieve complete remission with undetectable measurable residual disease,” so they stay on the costly treatment indefinitely or until disease progression or accumulating adverse events force a switch to venetoclax.
Using the two agents together, instead of consecutively, may allow strong responders to stop treatment altogether and suboptimal responders to have longer remissions, they said.
“We would not advocate prolonged Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use prior to starting venetoclax in treatment-naive patients, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3-month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated,” the team said.
However, the investigators noted that their “study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy.” Randomized trials are looking into the matter. The study was published recently as a preprint on ResearchSquare.com and has not been peer reviewed.
Complete remission in over half
The 45 adult subjects had one or more high-risk features for CLL progression and had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib at 140-420 mg once daily, depending on tolerance. They had bone marrow detectable disease at study entry but did not meet criteria for progression. Median duration of ibrutinib at baseline was 32 months, and about half the subjects were on it as their initial therapy.
Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor with a completely different mechanisms of action, was added to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, escalated up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily.
On intention-to-treat analysis, venetoclax add-on improved ibrutinib response to complete remission in 55% of patients; complete remission was defined as less than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes in bone marrow on two consecutive occasions 6 months apart.
The rate of undetectable bone marrow disease was 57% after 1 year of combined treatment and 71% after venetoclax completion, at which point 23 patients with undetectable disease stopped ibrutinib along with venetoclax.
Five patients had disease progression at a median of 41 months after venetoclax initiation, one during combined therapy, three during ibrutinib maintenance afterward, and one with Richter transformation after complete remission and discontinuation of all treatment. No patient had died from CLL.
“There has so far been no significant difference noted in” time to residual disease re-emergence, the team said, based on whether or not patients continued ibrutinib after venetoclax add-on.
There was no significant difference in the rate of bone marrow clearance according to the presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotypes, or prior treatment status.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia in 20% of patients. Nine patients developed nonmelanoma skin cancer during the trial; six were diagnosed with other solid tumors; three came down with grade 3 infections, and two developed myelodysplastic syndrome, both with a prior history of chemotherapy.
No one stopped venetoclax because of toxicity, but about a third of subjects required dose reductions, most often because of neutropenia.
The study was funded by AbbVie, which is commercializing venetoclax along with Genentech. Investigators disclosed ties to both companies and many others. Dr. Thompson disclosed ties to AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Beigene, and Genentech.
Investigators led by Philip Thompson, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the center, explained that CLL patients receiving ibrutinib, a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor, “rarely achieve complete remission with undetectable measurable residual disease,” so they stay on the costly treatment indefinitely or until disease progression or accumulating adverse events force a switch to venetoclax.
Using the two agents together, instead of consecutively, may allow strong responders to stop treatment altogether and suboptimal responders to have longer remissions, they said.
“We would not advocate prolonged Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use prior to starting venetoclax in treatment-naive patients, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3-month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated,” the team said.
However, the investigators noted that their “study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy.” Randomized trials are looking into the matter. The study was published recently as a preprint on ResearchSquare.com and has not been peer reviewed.
Complete remission in over half
The 45 adult subjects had one or more high-risk features for CLL progression and had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib at 140-420 mg once daily, depending on tolerance. They had bone marrow detectable disease at study entry but did not meet criteria for progression. Median duration of ibrutinib at baseline was 32 months, and about half the subjects were on it as their initial therapy.
Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor with a completely different mechanisms of action, was added to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, escalated up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily.
On intention-to-treat analysis, venetoclax add-on improved ibrutinib response to complete remission in 55% of patients; complete remission was defined as less than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes in bone marrow on two consecutive occasions 6 months apart.
The rate of undetectable bone marrow disease was 57% after 1 year of combined treatment and 71% after venetoclax completion, at which point 23 patients with undetectable disease stopped ibrutinib along with venetoclax.
Five patients had disease progression at a median of 41 months after venetoclax initiation, one during combined therapy, three during ibrutinib maintenance afterward, and one with Richter transformation after complete remission and discontinuation of all treatment. No patient had died from CLL.
“There has so far been no significant difference noted in” time to residual disease re-emergence, the team said, based on whether or not patients continued ibrutinib after venetoclax add-on.
There was no significant difference in the rate of bone marrow clearance according to the presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotypes, or prior treatment status.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia in 20% of patients. Nine patients developed nonmelanoma skin cancer during the trial; six were diagnosed with other solid tumors; three came down with grade 3 infections, and two developed myelodysplastic syndrome, both with a prior history of chemotherapy.
No one stopped venetoclax because of toxicity, but about a third of subjects required dose reductions, most often because of neutropenia.
The study was funded by AbbVie, which is commercializing venetoclax along with Genentech. Investigators disclosed ties to both companies and many others. Dr. Thompson disclosed ties to AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Beigene, and Genentech.
FROM RESEARCHSQUARE
AHA scientific statement on rapid evaluation for suspected TIA
TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.
A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.
The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
Diagnostic challenge
It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.
The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.
The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.
The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.
If available, a noncontrast head CT (NCCT) scan should be done initially in the emergency department to evaluate for subacute ischemia, hemorrhage, or mass lesion. Although the sensitivity of NCCT to detect an acute infarct is low, NCCT is useful for ruling out TIA mimics, the writing group said.
Multimodal brain MRI is the “preferred” method to evaluate for acute ischemic infarct and ideally should be obtained within 24 hours of symptom onset, and in most centers will follow an NCCT.
“When MRI cannot be obtained acutely to definitively distinguish TIA from stroke, it remains reasonable to make a clinical diagnosis of TIA in the ED on the basis of a negative NCCT and symptom resolution within 24 hours,” the authors said.
“A potential next step would be hospital admission for MRI, comprehensive workup, and neurology consultation. Other options might include transferring patients to a facility with advanced imaging and vascular neurology expertise or arranging a timely (ideally < 24 hours) outpatient MRI,” they advised.
The statement also provides guidance on the advantages, limitations, and considerations of Doppler ultrasonography, CT angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography for TIA assessment.
Once TIA is diagnosed, a cardiac work-up is advised because of the potential for heart-related factors to cause a TIA.
An individual’s risk of future stroke after TIA can be rapidly assessed using the ABCD2 score, which stratifies patients into low, medium, and high risk based on age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, and diabetes.
“It is up to each center to use the resources available and create a pathway to ensure successful management and disposition of patients with TIA, with the ultimate goal of reducing the risk of future stroke,” the authors concluded.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Emergency Neurovascular Care Committee of the Stroke Council and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists, and it is endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.
A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.
The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
Diagnostic challenge
It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.
The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.
The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.
The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.
If available, a noncontrast head CT (NCCT) scan should be done initially in the emergency department to evaluate for subacute ischemia, hemorrhage, or mass lesion. Although the sensitivity of NCCT to detect an acute infarct is low, NCCT is useful for ruling out TIA mimics, the writing group said.
Multimodal brain MRI is the “preferred” method to evaluate for acute ischemic infarct and ideally should be obtained within 24 hours of symptom onset, and in most centers will follow an NCCT.
“When MRI cannot be obtained acutely to definitively distinguish TIA from stroke, it remains reasonable to make a clinical diagnosis of TIA in the ED on the basis of a negative NCCT and symptom resolution within 24 hours,” the authors said.
“A potential next step would be hospital admission for MRI, comprehensive workup, and neurology consultation. Other options might include transferring patients to a facility with advanced imaging and vascular neurology expertise or arranging a timely (ideally < 24 hours) outpatient MRI,” they advised.
The statement also provides guidance on the advantages, limitations, and considerations of Doppler ultrasonography, CT angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography for TIA assessment.
Once TIA is diagnosed, a cardiac work-up is advised because of the potential for heart-related factors to cause a TIA.
An individual’s risk of future stroke after TIA can be rapidly assessed using the ABCD2 score, which stratifies patients into low, medium, and high risk based on age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, and diabetes.
“It is up to each center to use the resources available and create a pathway to ensure successful management and disposition of patients with TIA, with the ultimate goal of reducing the risk of future stroke,” the authors concluded.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Emergency Neurovascular Care Committee of the Stroke Council and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists, and it is endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.
A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.
The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
Diagnostic challenge
It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.
The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.
The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.
The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.
If available, a noncontrast head CT (NCCT) scan should be done initially in the emergency department to evaluate for subacute ischemia, hemorrhage, or mass lesion. Although the sensitivity of NCCT to detect an acute infarct is low, NCCT is useful for ruling out TIA mimics, the writing group said.
Multimodal brain MRI is the “preferred” method to evaluate for acute ischemic infarct and ideally should be obtained within 24 hours of symptom onset, and in most centers will follow an NCCT.
“When MRI cannot be obtained acutely to definitively distinguish TIA from stroke, it remains reasonable to make a clinical diagnosis of TIA in the ED on the basis of a negative NCCT and symptom resolution within 24 hours,” the authors said.
“A potential next step would be hospital admission for MRI, comprehensive workup, and neurology consultation. Other options might include transferring patients to a facility with advanced imaging and vascular neurology expertise or arranging a timely (ideally < 24 hours) outpatient MRI,” they advised.
The statement also provides guidance on the advantages, limitations, and considerations of Doppler ultrasonography, CT angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography for TIA assessment.
Once TIA is diagnosed, a cardiac work-up is advised because of the potential for heart-related factors to cause a TIA.
An individual’s risk of future stroke after TIA can be rapidly assessed using the ABCD2 score, which stratifies patients into low, medium, and high risk based on age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, and diabetes.
“It is up to each center to use the resources available and create a pathway to ensure successful management and disposition of patients with TIA, with the ultimate goal of reducing the risk of future stroke,” the authors concluded.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Emergency Neurovascular Care Committee of the Stroke Council and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists, and it is endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM STROKE
3D-printed tumor models could advance new cancer therapies
Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment.
Now the by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.
The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.”
Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient.
Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.
A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor.
“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”
Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains.
So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says.
“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research.
A 3D printer for your body
Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up.
Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone.
Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases.
The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing.
“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.”
Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.
Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.”
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient?
Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best.
In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”
To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment.
Now the by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.
The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.”
Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient.
Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.
A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor.
“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”
Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains.
So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says.
“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research.
A 3D printer for your body
Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up.
Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone.
Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases.
The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing.
“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.”
Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.
Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.”
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient?
Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best.
In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”
To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment.
Now the by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.
The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.”
Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient.
Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.
A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor.
“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”
Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains.
So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says.
“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research.
A 3D printer for your body
Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up.
Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone.
Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases.
The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing.
“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.”
Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.
Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.”
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient?
Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best.
In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”
To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.