Melasma (also known as chloasma faciei) is a common chronic skin disorder that results in well-demarcated, hyperpigmented, tan to dark patches that mostly appear in sun-exposed areas such as the face and neck and sometimes the arms. The exact prevalence or incidence is not known but is estimated to be 1% to 50% overall depending on the ethnic population and geographic location.^1,2 Melasma predominantly affects women, but research has shown that approximately 10% to 20% of men are affected by this condition.^3,4 Although melasma can affect patients of all skin types, it primarily affects those with darker skin tones.⁵ The groups most often affected are women of Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian ethnicity. Although the pathogenesis is complex and not fully understood, multiple pathways and etiologies have been theorized to cause melasma. Potential causes include exposure to UV radiation, oral contraceptives, hormonal changes, medications, thyroid dysfunction, genetics, and pregnancy.^6,7 Cytokines and growth factors, including adipokine and angiopoietin, synthesized by sebaceous glands play a role in the pathogenic mechanism of melasma. Cytokines and growth factors are hypothesized to modulate the function of melanocytes.⁸ Both melanocytes and sebocytes are controlled by α–melanocyte-stimulating hormone. Therefore, overexpression of α–melanocyte-stimulating hormone will result in overproduction of these 2 cell types, resulting in melasma. Melasma can be classified into 4 subtypes using Wood lamp examination: epidermal, dermal, mixed, or indeterminate.³ Furthermore, melasma is divided into subgroups based on the location: malar region, mandibular region, and centrofacial patch pattern.^9,10 The involvement of sebaceous glands in the pathogenesis of melasma may explain the predilection for the centrofacial region, which is the most common pattern.

The severity of melasma can be assessed using the melasma area and severity index (MASI), which is calculated by subjective assessment of 3 main factors: (1) facial area of involvement; (2) darkness of affected region; and (3) homogeneity, with the extent of melasma indicated by a score ranging from 0 to 48.¹¹ The modified MASI (mMASI) subsequently was introduced to assist with assessing the severity of melasma and creating distinct ranges for mild, moderate, and severe cases, ranging from 0 (mild) to 24 (severe).¹² Both indices are used in research to assess the improvement of melasma with treatment.

Patients with melasma report a decrease in quality of life, increased emotional stress, and lower self-esteem due to cosmesis.¹³ Treatment of melasma can be highly challenging and often is complicated by relapsing. Historically, the treatment of melasma has included the use of chemical lightening agents. Additional treatment options include the use of lasers and complex chemical peels,^9,10 but these interventions may result in adverse outcomes for individuals with darker skin tones. The current gold-standard treatment is topical hydroquinone and broad-spectrum sunscreen. Although hydroquinone is effective in the treatment of melasma, relapse is common. The goal of melasma management is not only to treat acute hyperpigmentation but also to prevent relapse. Other therapies that currently are being explored for the clinically sustained treatment of melasma include tranexamic acid (TXA)(trans-4-[aminomethyl]cyclohexanecarboxylic acid),^9,10 an antifibrinolytic agent routinely used to prevent blood loss during surgery and in the management of menorrhagia. It is a synthetic derivative of lysine and serves as a potent plasmin inhibitor by blocking the lysine-binding sites of plasminogen molecules, thus preventing the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin. It also prevents fibrinolysis and blood loss.

In addition to its hemostatic properties, TXA has been found to have hypopigmentation properties.^14,15 Plasminogen also can be found in human epidermal basal cells and human keratinocytes, and it is postulated that TXA’s interaction with these cells explains its hypopigmentation properties. Both UV radiation and hormones activate plasminogen into plasmin, resulting in the activation of tyrosinase and melanogenesis.^14,15 Tranexamic acid is postulated to inhibit the keratinocyte-plasminogen pathway, thus leading to the inhibition of UV-induced and hormone-induced pigmentation. Also, TXA serves as a competitive inhibitor for tyrosinase due to its structural similarity to tyrosine.¹⁵ The combination of these 2 mechanisms contributes to the skin-lightening effects of TXA, making it a potential treatment for melasma.

Furthermore, the use of microneedling is being explored as a treatment option for melasma. Microneedling creates microscopic punctures in the skin using tiny needles, resulting in a wound-healing response and skin resurfacing. The microneedling technique is utilized to create small holes in the skin, with needle depths that can be adjusted from 0.5 to 3.5 mm to target different layers of the dermis and allow for discreet application of TXA.¹⁶ We sought to look at the current literature on the use and effectiveness of microneedling in combination with TXA to treat melasma and prevent relapse.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE and Embase in November 2021 to compile available articles that studied TXA and microneedling as a treatment for melasma. The PubMed search terms were (melasma) AND (microneedling* OR ‘tranexamic acid’ OR TXA or TA). The Embase search terms were (cholasma OR melasma) AND (tranexamic acid OR TXA) AND (microneedling)(Figure). The search was then limited to ”randomized controlled trial” and ”clinical trial” in English-language journals. Duplicates were excluded. After thorough evaluation, articles that discussed the use of TXA in combination with treatment options other than microneedling also were excluded.

Results

The literature search yielded a total of 12 articles that assessed the effectiveness of TXA and microneedling for the treatment of melasma (Table).^17-28 Several articles concluded that TXA was equally effective at reducing melasma lesions when compared with the standard treatment of hydroquinone. Some of the reviewed articles also demonstrated the effectiveness of microneedling in improving melasma lesions as a stand-alone treatment. These studies highlighted the enhanced efficacy of the combined treatment of TXA and microneedling compared with their individual uses.^17-28

Comment

Melasma is a common chronic hyperpigmentation disorder, making its treatment clinically challenging. Many patients experience symptom relapses, and limited effective treatment options make achieving complete clearance difficult, underscoring the need for improved therapeutic approaches. Recently, researchers have explored alternative treatments to address the challenges of melasma management. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic used to prevent blood loss and has emerged as a potential treatment for melasma. Similarly, microneedling—a technique in which multiple punctures are made in the skin to activate and stimulate wound healing and skin rejuvenation—shows promise for melasma.

Oral TXA for Melasma—Oral TXA has been shown to reduce melasma lesions. Del Rosario et al¹⁷ recruited 44 women (39 of whom completed the study) with moderate to severe melasma and randomized them into 2 groups: oral TXA and placebo. This study demonstrated a 49% reduction in the mMASI score in all participants taking oral TXA (250 mg twice daily [BID]) compared with an 18% reduction in the control group (placebo capsule BID) after 3 months of treatment. In patients with moderate and severe melasma, 45% and 51% mMASI score reductions were reported in the treatment group, respectively, vs 16% and 19% score reductions in placebo group, respectively. These researchers concluded that oral TXA may be effective at treating moderate to severe melasma. Although patients with severe melasma had a better response to treatment, their improvement was not sustained compared with patients with moderate melasma after a 3-month posttreatment follow-up.¹⁷

Microneedling Plus TXA for Melasma—Microneedling alone has been shown to be effective for melasma. El Attar et al¹⁸ conducted a split-face study of microneedling (1.5-mm depth) plus topical TXA (0.5 mL)(right side of the face[treatment arm]) compared with microneedling (1.5-mm depth) plus topical vitamin C (0.5 mL)(left side of the face [control group]) in 20 women with melasma. The sessions were repeated every 2 weeks for a total of 6 sessions. Although researchers found no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment sides, microneedling plus TXA showed a slight advantage over microneedling plus vitamin C in dermoscopic examination. Both sides showed improvement in pigmented lesions, but vitamin C–treated lesions did not show an improvement in vascularity vs TXA.¹⁸

Saleh et al¹⁹ further showed that combination treatment with microneedling and TXA may improve clinical outcomes better than microneedling alone. Their study demonstrated a reduction in MASI score that was significantly higher in the combination treatment group compared with the microneedling alone group (P=.001). There was a significant reduction in melanoma antigen recognized by T cells 1 (MART-1)–positive cells in the combination treatment group compared with the microneedling alone group (P=.001). Lastly, combined therapy improved melasma patches better than microneedling alone.¹⁹

Xu et al²⁰ conducted a split-face study (N=28) exploring the effectiveness of transdermal application of topical TXA using a microarray pen with microneedles (vibration at 3000×/min) plus topical TXA on one side of the face, while the other side received only topical TXA as a control. After 12 weeks of treatment, combination therapy with microneedling and TXA decreased brown spot scores, lowered melanin index (MI) values, improved blinded physician assessment, and improved patient satisfaction vs TXA therapy alone.²⁰

Kaur et al²¹ conducted a split-face, randomized, controlled trial of microneedling (1-mm depth) with TXA solution 10% vs microneedling (1-mm depth) with distilled water alone for 8 weeks (N=40). They graded participant responses to treatment using reductions in mMASI scores¹² at every 2 weeks of follow-up (no response, minimal or poor response=0%–25%; partial or fair response=26%–50%; good response=51%–75%; and excellent response=>75%). They reported an overall reduction in mMASI scores for both the treatment side and the control side in all participants, showing a 65.92% improvement in mean mMASI scores on the treatment side vs 20.75% improvement on the control side at week 8. Both sides showed statistically significant reductions in mean mMASI scores (P<.05). Clinically, 40% (16/40) of participants showed an excellent response to combined treatment compared with 0% (0/40) to microneedling alone. Overall, patient satisfaction was similar across both groups. This study demonstrated that microneedling alone improves melasma, but a combination of microneedling plus TXA showed a better clinical reduction in melasma. However, the researchers did not follow up with participants posttreatment, so it remains unclear if the improved clinical outcomes were sustained long-term.²¹

Ebrahim et al²² reported that the combination of 0.5 mL TXA (4 mg/mL) and microneedling (0.25- to 1-mm depth) was effective for melasma. Although there was improvement within microneedling and TXA, the study also showed that intradermal injection of TXA was significant in reducing mean mMASI scores and improving melasma (P<.001). The reduction in mMASI scores for the group receiving intradermal injections of TXA (left side; 74.8% reduction in mean mMASI score) vs the group receiving microneedling application of TXA (right side; 73.6% reduction in mean mMASI score) was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that the mode of TXA application may not be critical in determining clinical responses to TXA treatment. Although there was no reported statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the 2 treatments, patient satisfaction was higher on the microneedling side. Only 8 of 50 participants (16%) experienced recurrence 3 months posttreatment.²²

Saki et al²³ compared the efficacy of topical hydroquinone (2%) to intradermal TXA injections in treating melasma. They found intradermal TXA injections to be a clinically effective mode of treatment.²³

Sharma et al²⁴ explored the efficacy and safety of oral TXA by randomly assigning 100 Indian patients (20 of whom withdrew before study completion) with melasma into 2 groups: group A received TXA 250 mg twice daily, and group B received intradermal microinjections of TXA (4 mg/mL) every 4 weeks. The MASI scores were assessed at 4-week intervals for a total of 12 weeks. There was a decrease in MASI scores in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in mean percentage reduction in MASI scores between the 2 routes of drug administration, further suggesting the effectiveness of TXA independent of administration route. Two patients in group A relapsed at 24 weeks, and there were no relapses in group B, which may suggest a minimal superiority of TXA plus microneedling at providing more sustainable results compared with oral TXA alone. A notable limitation of this study was a high dropout rate as well as lack of long-term follow-up with participants, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions.²⁴

Cassiano et al²⁵ assigned 64 women with melasma to 1 of 3 treatment groups or a control group to compare the effectiveness of microneedling (M group: 1.5 mm; 2 sessions), oral TXA (T group: 250 mg/d twice daily for 60 days), and a combination of microneedling (2 sessions) and oral TXA (MT group: 250 mg/d twice daily for 60 days)with placebo for clinically reducing melasma lesions. The intervention period was 60 days followed by a 60-day maintenance phase for a total study period of 120 days. The researchers evaluated mMASI scores, quality of life, and difference in colorimetric luminosity. All treatment groups showed a reduction in mMASI scores at both 30 days and 60 days, indicating improved melasma severity. The MT and T groups had more significant improvement at 30 days compared with the control group (P<.03), suggesting that microneedling plus TXA and TXA alone promote faster improvement in melasma lesions. By 60 days, the M, T, and MT groups outperformed the control group, with no significant differences between the M, T, and MT groups. However, at the 120-day maintenance follow-up, the T group did not maintain its improvement compared with the control group. The M and MT groups showed no significance difference in effectiveness at 120 days, suggesting that microneedling may promote less frequent relapse and sustained remission compared to TXA alone.²⁵

Hydroquinone for Melasma—Additional studies on the use of TXA treatments show that TXA may be an equally effective alternative to the standard use of hydroquinone treatment. Shamsi Meymandi et al²⁶ did not find a statistically significant difference in treatment with TXA plus microneedling vs the standard regimen of hydroquinone. More importantly, patient and physician satisfaction assessments were similar between the 2 groups. Compared to hydroquinone, nightly treatment is not necessary with microneedling and TXA.²⁶

Xing et al²⁷ supported these conclusions with their study. They compared 3 study arms for a duration of 12 weeks: group A received topical 1.8% liposomal TXA BID, group B received stamp-mode electric microneedling with 5% TXA weekly, and group C applied 2% ­hydroquinone cream nightly. The study concluded that all 3 groups showed a significant reduction in mean MI by the end of the study, but a better MI improvement was observed in groups B and C (both P<.001) compared with group A (P<.01).²⁷

Zaky et al²⁸ showed that both hydroquinone and combination treatment of TXA plus microneedling are effective at improving melasma lesions. Further studies are needed to definitively conclude if combination treatment is more efficacious than hydroquinone; if the combination is more effective, it provides a treatment option for patients with melasma who may not be good candidates for hydroquinone treatment.

Study Limitations—One limitation in all the studies evaluated is the sample size. Because they all had small sample sizes, it is difficult to definitively conclude that the combination TXA and microneedling is an effective and appropriate treatment for patients with melasma. Furthermore, the quality of these studies was mostly dependent on subjectivity of the mMASI scores. Future large randomized controlled trials with a diverse participant population are needed to assess the effectiveness of TXA and microneedling in melasma treatment.

Another limitation is that many of the studies did not follow the patients longitudinally, which did not allow for an evaluation of whether patients had a relapse of melasma. Due to the chronic nature of melasma and frequent disease recurrence, future longitudinal studies are needed to monitor for disease recurrence.

Conclusion

Tranexamic acid and microneedling are potential treatment options for patients with melasma, and combination therapy appears more effective than either TXA or microneedling alone at providing sustained improvement of melasma lesions. Combination therapy appears safe and well tolerated, but its effect on reducing long-term disease recurrence is yet to be established.

Melasma (also known as chloasma faciei) is a common chronic skin disorder that results in well-demarcated, hyperpigmented, tan to dark patches that mostly appear in sun-exposed areas such as the face and neck and sometimes the arms. The exact prevalence or incidence is not known but is estimated to be 1% to 50% overall depending on the ethnic population and geographic location.^1,2 Melasma predominantly affects women, but research has shown that approximately 10% to 20% of men are affected by this condition.^3,4 Although melasma can affect patients of all skin types, it primarily affects those with darker skin tones.⁵ The groups most often affected are women of Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian ethnicity. Although the pathogenesis is complex and not fully understood, multiple pathways and etiologies have been theorized to cause melasma. Potential causes include exposure to UV radiation, oral contraceptives, hormonal changes, medications, thyroid dysfunction, genetics, and pregnancy.^6,7 Cytokines and growth factors, including adipokine and angiopoietin, synthesized by sebaceous glands play a role in the pathogenic mechanism of melasma. Cytokines and growth factors are hypothesized to modulate the function of melanocytes.⁸ Both melanocytes and sebocytes are controlled by α–melanocyte-stimulating hormone. Therefore, overexpression of α–melanocyte-stimulating hormone will result in overproduction of these 2 cell types, resulting in melasma. Melasma can be classified into 4 subtypes using Wood lamp examination: epidermal, dermal, mixed, or indeterminate.³ Furthermore, melasma is divided into subgroups based on the location: malar region, mandibular region, and centrofacial patch pattern.^9,10 The involvement of sebaceous glands in the pathogenesis of melasma may explain the predilection for the centrofacial region, which is the most common pattern.

The severity of melasma can be assessed using the melasma area and severity index (MASI), which is calculated by subjective assessment of 3 main factors: (1) facial area of involvement; (2) darkness of affected region; and (3) homogeneity, with the extent of melasma indicated by a score ranging from 0 to 48.¹¹ The modified MASI (mMASI) subsequently was introduced to assist with assessing the severity of melasma and creating distinct ranges for mild, moderate, and severe cases, ranging from 0 (mild) to 24 (severe).¹² Both indices are used in research to assess the improvement of melasma with treatment.

Patients with melasma report a decrease in quality of life, increased emotional stress, and lower self-esteem due to cosmesis.¹³ Treatment of melasma can be highly challenging and often is complicated by relapsing. Historically, the treatment of melasma has included the use of chemical lightening agents. Additional treatment options include the use of lasers and complex chemical peels,^9,10 but these interventions may result in adverse outcomes for individuals with darker skin tones. The current gold-standard treatment is topical hydroquinone and broad-spectrum sunscreen. Although hydroquinone is effective in the treatment of melasma, relapse is common. The goal of melasma management is not only to treat acute hyperpigmentation but also to prevent relapse. Other therapies that currently are being explored for the clinically sustained treatment of melasma include tranexamic acid (TXA)(trans-4-[aminomethyl]cyclohexanecarboxylic acid),^9,10 an antifibrinolytic agent routinely used to prevent blood loss during surgery and in the management of menorrhagia. It is a synthetic derivative of lysine and serves as a potent plasmin inhibitor by blocking the lysine-binding sites of plasminogen molecules, thus preventing the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin. It also prevents fibrinolysis and blood loss.

In addition to its hemostatic properties, TXA has been found to have hypopigmentation properties.^14,15 Plasminogen also can be found in human epidermal basal cells and human keratinocytes, and it is postulated that TXA’s interaction with these cells explains its hypopigmentation properties. Both UV radiation and hormones activate plasminogen into plasmin, resulting in the activation of tyrosinase and melanogenesis.^14,15 Tranexamic acid is postulated to inhibit the keratinocyte-plasminogen pathway, thus leading to the inhibition of UV-induced and hormone-induced pigmentation. Also, TXA serves as a competitive inhibitor for tyrosinase due to its structural similarity to tyrosine.¹⁵ The combination of these 2 mechanisms contributes to the skin-lightening effects of TXA, making it a potential treatment for melasma.

Furthermore, the use of microneedling is being explored as a treatment option for melasma. Microneedling creates microscopic punctures in the skin using tiny needles, resulting in a wound-healing response and skin resurfacing. The microneedling technique is utilized to create small holes in the skin, with needle depths that can be adjusted from 0.5 to 3.5 mm to target different layers of the dermis and allow for discreet application of TXA.¹⁶ We sought to look at the current literature on the use and effectiveness of microneedling in combination with TXA to treat melasma and prevent relapse.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE and Embase in November 2021 to compile available articles that studied TXA and microneedling as a treatment for melasma. The PubMed search terms were (melasma) AND (microneedling* OR ‘tranexamic acid’ OR TXA or TA). The Embase search terms were (cholasma OR melasma) AND (tranexamic acid OR TXA) AND (microneedling)(Figure). The search was then limited to ”randomized controlled trial” and ”clinical trial” in English-language journals. Duplicates were excluded. After thorough evaluation, articles that discussed the use of TXA in combination with treatment options other than microneedling also were excluded.

Results

The literature search yielded a total of 12 articles that assessed the effectiveness of TXA and microneedling for the treatment of melasma (Table).^17-28 Several articles concluded that TXA was equally effective at reducing melasma lesions when compared with the standard treatment of hydroquinone. Some of the reviewed articles also demonstrated the effectiveness of microneedling in improving melasma lesions as a stand-alone treatment. These studies highlighted the enhanced efficacy of the combined treatment of TXA and microneedling compared with their individual uses.^17-28

Comment

Melasma is a common chronic hyperpigmentation disorder, making its treatment clinically challenging. Many patients experience symptom relapses, and limited effective treatment options make achieving complete clearance difficult, underscoring the need for improved therapeutic approaches. Recently, researchers have explored alternative treatments to address the challenges of melasma management. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic used to prevent blood loss and has emerged as a potential treatment for melasma. Similarly, microneedling—a technique in which multiple punctures are made in the skin to activate and stimulate wound healing and skin rejuvenation—shows promise for melasma.

Oral TXA for Melasma—Oral TXA has been shown to reduce melasma lesions. Del Rosario et al¹⁷ recruited 44 women (39 of whom completed the study) with moderate to severe melasma and randomized them into 2 groups: oral TXA and placebo. This study demonstrated a 49% reduction in the mMASI score in all participants taking oral TXA (250 mg twice daily [BID]) compared with an 18% reduction in the control group (placebo capsule BID) after 3 months of treatment. In patients with moderate and severe melasma, 45% and 51% mMASI score reductions were reported in the treatment group, respectively, vs 16% and 19% score reductions in placebo group, respectively. These researchers concluded that oral TXA may be effective at treating moderate to severe melasma. Although patients with severe melasma had a better response to treatment, their improvement was not sustained compared with patients with moderate melasma after a 3-month posttreatment follow-up.¹⁷

Microneedling Plus TXA for Melasma—Microneedling alone has been shown to be effective for melasma. El Attar et al¹⁸ conducted a split-face study of microneedling (1.5-mm depth) plus topical TXA (0.5 mL)(right side of the face[treatment arm]) compared with microneedling (1.5-mm depth) plus topical vitamin C (0.5 mL)(left side of the face [control group]) in 20 women with melasma. The sessions were repeated every 2 weeks for a total of 6 sessions. Although researchers found no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment sides, microneedling plus TXA showed a slight advantage over microneedling plus vitamin C in dermoscopic examination. Both sides showed improvement in pigmented lesions, but vitamin C–treated lesions did not show an improvement in vascularity vs TXA.¹⁸

Saleh et al¹⁹ further showed that combination treatment with microneedling and TXA may improve clinical outcomes better than microneedling alone. Their study demonstrated a reduction in MASI score that was significantly higher in the combination treatment group compared with the microneedling alone group (P=.001). There was a significant reduction in melanoma antigen recognized by T cells 1 (MART-1)–positive cells in the combination treatment group compared with the microneedling alone group (P=.001). Lastly, combined therapy improved melasma patches better than microneedling alone.¹⁹

Xu et al²⁰ conducted a split-face study (N=28) exploring the effectiveness of transdermal application of topical TXA using a microarray pen with microneedles (vibration at 3000×/min) plus topical TXA on one side of the face, while the other side received only topical TXA as a control. After 12 weeks of treatment, combination therapy with microneedling and TXA decreased brown spot scores, lowered melanin index (MI) values, improved blinded physician assessment, and improved patient satisfaction vs TXA therapy alone.²⁰

Kaur et al²¹ conducted a split-face, randomized, controlled trial of microneedling (1-mm depth) with TXA solution 10% vs microneedling (1-mm depth) with distilled water alone for 8 weeks (N=40). They graded participant responses to treatment using reductions in mMASI scores¹² at every 2 weeks of follow-up (no response, minimal or poor response=0%–25%; partial or fair response=26%–50%; good response=51%–75%; and excellent response=>75%). They reported an overall reduction in mMASI scores for both the treatment side and the control side in all participants, showing a 65.92% improvement in mean mMASI scores on the treatment side vs 20.75% improvement on the control side at week 8. Both sides showed statistically significant reductions in mean mMASI scores (P<.05). Clinically, 40% (16/40) of participants showed an excellent response to combined treatment compared with 0% (0/40) to microneedling alone. Overall, patient satisfaction was similar across both groups. This study demonstrated that microneedling alone improves melasma, but a combination of microneedling plus TXA showed a better clinical reduction in melasma. However, the researchers did not follow up with participants posttreatment, so it remains unclear if the improved clinical outcomes were sustained long-term.²¹

Ebrahim et al²² reported that the combination of 0.5 mL TXA (4 mg/mL) and microneedling (0.25- to 1-mm depth) was effective for melasma. Although there was improvement within microneedling and TXA, the study also showed that intradermal injection of TXA was significant in reducing mean mMASI scores and improving melasma (P<.001). The reduction in mMASI scores for the group receiving intradermal injections of TXA (left side; 74.8% reduction in mean mMASI score) vs the group receiving microneedling application of TXA (right side; 73.6% reduction in mean mMASI score) was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that the mode of TXA application may not be critical in determining clinical responses to TXA treatment. Although there was no reported statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the 2 treatments, patient satisfaction was higher on the microneedling side. Only 8 of 50 participants (16%) experienced recurrence 3 months posttreatment.²²

Saki et al²³ compared the efficacy of topical hydroquinone (2%) to intradermal TXA injections in treating melasma. They found intradermal TXA injections to be a clinically effective mode of treatment.²³

Sharma et al²⁴ explored the efficacy and safety of oral TXA by randomly assigning 100 Indian patients (20 of whom withdrew before study completion) with melasma into 2 groups: group A received TXA 250 mg twice daily, and group B received intradermal microinjections of TXA (4 mg/mL) every 4 weeks. The MASI scores were assessed at 4-week intervals for a total of 12 weeks. There was a decrease in MASI scores in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in mean percentage reduction in MASI scores between the 2 routes of drug administration, further suggesting the effectiveness of TXA independent of administration route. Two patients in group A relapsed at 24 weeks, and there were no relapses in group B, which may suggest a minimal superiority of TXA plus microneedling at providing more sustainable results compared with oral TXA alone. A notable limitation of this study was a high dropout rate as well as lack of long-term follow-up with participants, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions.²⁴

Cassiano et al²⁵ assigned 64 women with melasma to 1 of 3 treatment groups or a control group to compare the effectiveness of microneedling (M group: 1.5 mm; 2 sessions), oral TXA (T group: 250 mg/d twice daily for 60 days), and a combination of microneedling (2 sessions) and oral TXA (MT group: 250 mg/d twice daily for 60 days)with placebo for clinically reducing melasma lesions. The intervention period was 60 days followed by a 60-day maintenance phase for a total study period of 120 days. The researchers evaluated mMASI scores, quality of life, and difference in colorimetric luminosity. All treatment groups showed a reduction in mMASI scores at both 30 days and 60 days, indicating improved melasma severity. The MT and T groups had more significant improvement at 30 days compared with the control group (P<.03), suggesting that microneedling plus TXA and TXA alone promote faster improvement in melasma lesions. By 60 days, the M, T, and MT groups outperformed the control group, with no significant differences between the M, T, and MT groups. However, at the 120-day maintenance follow-up, the T group did not maintain its improvement compared with the control group. The M and MT groups showed no significance difference in effectiveness at 120 days, suggesting that microneedling may promote less frequent relapse and sustained remission compared to TXA alone.²⁵

Hydroquinone for Melasma—Additional studies on the use of TXA treatments show that TXA may be an equally effective alternative to the standard use of hydroquinone treatment. Shamsi Meymandi et al²⁶ did not find a statistically significant difference in treatment with TXA plus microneedling vs the standard regimen of hydroquinone. More importantly, patient and physician satisfaction assessments were similar between the 2 groups. Compared to hydroquinone, nightly treatment is not necessary with microneedling and TXA.²⁶

Xing et al²⁷ supported these conclusions with their study. They compared 3 study arms for a duration of 12 weeks: group A received topical 1.8% liposomal TXA BID, group B received stamp-mode electric microneedling with 5% TXA weekly, and group C applied 2% ­hydroquinone cream nightly. The study concluded that all 3 groups showed a significant reduction in mean MI by the end of the study, but a better MI improvement was observed in groups B and C (both P<.001) compared with group A (P<.01).²⁷

Zaky et al²⁸ showed that both hydroquinone and combination treatment of TXA plus microneedling are effective at improving melasma lesions. Further studies are needed to definitively conclude if combination treatment is more efficacious than hydroquinone; if the combination is more effective, it provides a treatment option for patients with melasma who may not be good candidates for hydroquinone treatment.

Study Limitations—One limitation in all the studies evaluated is the sample size. Because they all had small sample sizes, it is difficult to definitively conclude that the combination TXA and microneedling is an effective and appropriate treatment for patients with melasma. Furthermore, the quality of these studies was mostly dependent on subjectivity of the mMASI scores. Future large randomized controlled trials with a diverse participant population are needed to assess the effectiveness of TXA and microneedling in melasma treatment.

Another limitation is that many of the studies did not follow the patients longitudinally, which did not allow for an evaluation of whether patients had a relapse of melasma. Due to the chronic nature of melasma and frequent disease recurrence, future longitudinal studies are needed to monitor for disease recurrence.

Conclusion

Tranexamic acid and microneedling are potential treatment options for patients with melasma, and combination therapy appears more effective than either TXA or microneedling alone at providing sustained improvement of melasma lesions. Combination therapy appears safe and well tolerated, but its effect on reducing long-term disease recurrence is yet to be established.

Melasma (also known as chloasma faciei) is a common chronic skin disorder that results in well-demarcated, hyperpigmented, tan to dark patches that mostly appear in sun-exposed areas such as the face and neck and sometimes the arms. The exact prevalence or incidence is not known but is estimated to be 1% to 50% overall depending on the ethnic population and geographic location.^1,2 Melasma predominantly affects women, but research has shown that approximately 10% to 20% of men are affected by this condition.^3,4 Although melasma can affect patients of all skin types, it primarily affects those with darker skin tones.⁵ The groups most often affected are women of Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian ethnicity. Although the pathogenesis is complex and not fully understood, multiple pathways and etiologies have been theorized to cause melasma. Potential causes include exposure to UV radiation, oral contraceptives, hormonal changes, medications, thyroid dysfunction, genetics, and pregnancy.^6,7 Cytokines and growth factors, including adipokine and angiopoietin, synthesized by sebaceous glands play a role in the pathogenic mechanism of melasma. Cytokines and growth factors are hypothesized to modulate the function of melanocytes.⁸ Both melanocytes and sebocytes are controlled by α–melanocyte-stimulating hormone. Therefore, overexpression of α–melanocyte-stimulating hormone will result in overproduction of these 2 cell types, resulting in melasma. Melasma can be classified into 4 subtypes using Wood lamp examination: epidermal, dermal, mixed, or indeterminate.³ Furthermore, melasma is divided into subgroups based on the location: malar region, mandibular region, and centrofacial patch pattern.^9,10 The involvement of sebaceous glands in the pathogenesis of melasma may explain the predilection for the centrofacial region, which is the most common pattern.

The severity of melasma can be assessed using the melasma area and severity index (MASI), which is calculated by subjective assessment of 3 main factors: (1) facial area of involvement; (2) darkness of affected region; and (3) homogeneity, with the extent of melasma indicated by a score ranging from 0 to 48.¹¹ The modified MASI (mMASI) subsequently was introduced to assist with assessing the severity of melasma and creating distinct ranges for mild, moderate, and severe cases, ranging from 0 (mild) to 24 (severe).¹² Both indices are used in research to assess the improvement of melasma with treatment.

Patients with melasma report a decrease in quality of life, increased emotional stress, and lower self-esteem due to cosmesis.¹³ Treatment of melasma can be highly challenging and often is complicated by relapsing. Historically, the treatment of melasma has included the use of chemical lightening agents. Additional treatment options include the use of lasers and complex chemical peels,^9,10 but these interventions may result in adverse outcomes for individuals with darker skin tones. The current gold-standard treatment is topical hydroquinone and broad-spectrum sunscreen. Although hydroquinone is effective in the treatment of melasma, relapse is common. The goal of melasma management is not only to treat acute hyperpigmentation but also to prevent relapse. Other therapies that currently are being explored for the clinically sustained treatment of melasma include tranexamic acid (TXA)(trans-4-[aminomethyl]cyclohexanecarboxylic acid),^9,10 an antifibrinolytic agent routinely used to prevent blood loss during surgery and in the management of menorrhagia. It is a synthetic derivative of lysine and serves as a potent plasmin inhibitor by blocking the lysine-binding sites of plasminogen molecules, thus preventing the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin. It also prevents fibrinolysis and blood loss.

In addition to its hemostatic properties, TXA has been found to have hypopigmentation properties.^14,15 Plasminogen also can be found in human epidermal basal cells and human keratinocytes, and it is postulated that TXA’s interaction with these cells explains its hypopigmentation properties. Both UV radiation and hormones activate plasminogen into plasmin, resulting in the activation of tyrosinase and melanogenesis.^14,15 Tranexamic acid is postulated to inhibit the keratinocyte-plasminogen pathway, thus leading to the inhibition of UV-induced and hormone-induced pigmentation. Also, TXA serves as a competitive inhibitor for tyrosinase due to its structural similarity to tyrosine.¹⁵ The combination of these 2 mechanisms contributes to the skin-lightening effects of TXA, making it a potential treatment for melasma.

Furthermore, the use of microneedling is being explored as a treatment option for melasma. Microneedling creates microscopic punctures in the skin using tiny needles, resulting in a wound-healing response and skin resurfacing. The microneedling technique is utilized to create small holes in the skin, with needle depths that can be adjusted from 0.5 to 3.5 mm to target different layers of the dermis and allow for discreet application of TXA.¹⁶ We sought to look at the current literature on the use and effectiveness of microneedling in combination with TXA to treat melasma and prevent relapse.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE and Embase in November 2021 to compile available articles that studied TXA and microneedling as a treatment for melasma. The PubMed search terms were (melasma) AND (microneedling* OR ‘tranexamic acid’ OR TXA or TA). The Embase search terms were (cholasma OR melasma) AND (tranexamic acid OR TXA) AND (microneedling)(Figure). The search was then limited to ”randomized controlled trial” and ”clinical trial” in English-language journals. Duplicates were excluded. After thorough evaluation, articles that discussed the use of TXA in combination with treatment options other than microneedling also were excluded.

Results

The literature search yielded a total of 12 articles that assessed the effectiveness of TXA and microneedling for the treatment of melasma (Table).^17-28 Several articles concluded that TXA was equally effective at reducing melasma lesions when compared with the standard treatment of hydroquinone. Some of the reviewed articles also demonstrated the effectiveness of microneedling in improving melasma lesions as a stand-alone treatment. These studies highlighted the enhanced efficacy of the combined treatment of TXA and microneedling compared with their individual uses.^17-28

Comment

Melasma is a common chronic hyperpigmentation disorder, making its treatment clinically challenging. Many patients experience symptom relapses, and limited effective treatment options make achieving complete clearance difficult, underscoring the need for improved therapeutic approaches. Recently, researchers have explored alternative treatments to address the challenges of melasma management. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic used to prevent blood loss and has emerged as a potential treatment for melasma. Similarly, microneedling—a technique in which multiple punctures are made in the skin to activate and stimulate wound healing and skin rejuvenation—shows promise for melasma.

Oral TXA for Melasma—Oral TXA has been shown to reduce melasma lesions. Del Rosario et al¹⁷ recruited 44 women (39 of whom completed the study) with moderate to severe melasma and randomized them into 2 groups: oral TXA and placebo. This study demonstrated a 49% reduction in the mMASI score in all participants taking oral TXA (250 mg twice daily [BID]) compared with an 18% reduction in the control group (placebo capsule BID) after 3 months of treatment. In patients with moderate and severe melasma, 45% and 51% mMASI score reductions were reported in the treatment group, respectively, vs 16% and 19% score reductions in placebo group, respectively. These researchers concluded that oral TXA may be effective at treating moderate to severe melasma. Although patients with severe melasma had a better response to treatment, their improvement was not sustained compared with patients with moderate melasma after a 3-month posttreatment follow-up.¹⁷

Microneedling Plus TXA for Melasma—Microneedling alone has been shown to be effective for melasma. El Attar et al¹⁸ conducted a split-face study of microneedling (1.5-mm depth) plus topical TXA (0.5 mL)(right side of the face[treatment arm]) compared with microneedling (1.5-mm depth) plus topical vitamin C (0.5 mL)(left side of the face [control group]) in 20 women with melasma. The sessions were repeated every 2 weeks for a total of 6 sessions. Although researchers found no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment sides, microneedling plus TXA showed a slight advantage over microneedling plus vitamin C in dermoscopic examination. Both sides showed improvement in pigmented lesions, but vitamin C–treated lesions did not show an improvement in vascularity vs TXA.¹⁸

Saleh et al¹⁹ further showed that combination treatment with microneedling and TXA may improve clinical outcomes better than microneedling alone. Their study demonstrated a reduction in MASI score that was significantly higher in the combination treatment group compared with the microneedling alone group (P=.001). There was a significant reduction in melanoma antigen recognized by T cells 1 (MART-1)–positive cells in the combination treatment group compared with the microneedling alone group (P=.001). Lastly, combined therapy improved melasma patches better than microneedling alone.¹⁹

Xu et al²⁰ conducted a split-face study (N=28) exploring the effectiveness of transdermal application of topical TXA using a microarray pen with microneedles (vibration at 3000×/min) plus topical TXA on one side of the face, while the other side received only topical TXA as a control. After 12 weeks of treatment, combination therapy with microneedling and TXA decreased brown spot scores, lowered melanin index (MI) values, improved blinded physician assessment, and improved patient satisfaction vs TXA therapy alone.²⁰

Kaur et al²¹ conducted a split-face, randomized, controlled trial of microneedling (1-mm depth) with TXA solution 10% vs microneedling (1-mm depth) with distilled water alone for 8 weeks (N=40). They graded participant responses to treatment using reductions in mMASI scores¹² at every 2 weeks of follow-up (no response, minimal or poor response=0%–25%; partial or fair response=26%–50%; good response=51%–75%; and excellent response=>75%). They reported an overall reduction in mMASI scores for both the treatment side and the control side in all participants, showing a 65.92% improvement in mean mMASI scores on the treatment side vs 20.75% improvement on the control side at week 8. Both sides showed statistically significant reductions in mean mMASI scores (P<.05). Clinically, 40% (16/40) of participants showed an excellent response to combined treatment compared with 0% (0/40) to microneedling alone. Overall, patient satisfaction was similar across both groups. This study demonstrated that microneedling alone improves melasma, but a combination of microneedling plus TXA showed a better clinical reduction in melasma. However, the researchers did not follow up with participants posttreatment, so it remains unclear if the improved clinical outcomes were sustained long-term.²¹

Ebrahim et al²² reported that the combination of 0.5 mL TXA (4 mg/mL) and microneedling (0.25- to 1-mm depth) was effective for melasma. Although there was improvement within microneedling and TXA, the study also showed that intradermal injection of TXA was significant in reducing mean mMASI scores and improving melasma (P<.001). The reduction in mMASI scores for the group receiving intradermal injections of TXA (left side; 74.8% reduction in mean mMASI score) vs the group receiving microneedling application of TXA (right side; 73.6% reduction in mean mMASI score) was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that the mode of TXA application may not be critical in determining clinical responses to TXA treatment. Although there was no reported statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the 2 treatments, patient satisfaction was higher on the microneedling side. Only 8 of 50 participants (16%) experienced recurrence 3 months posttreatment.²²

Saki et al²³ compared the efficacy of topical hydroquinone (2%) to intradermal TXA injections in treating melasma. They found intradermal TXA injections to be a clinically effective mode of treatment.²³

Sharma et al²⁴ explored the efficacy and safety of oral TXA by randomly assigning 100 Indian patients (20 of whom withdrew before study completion) with melasma into 2 groups: group A received TXA 250 mg twice daily, and group B received intradermal microinjections of TXA (4 mg/mL) every 4 weeks. The MASI scores were assessed at 4-week intervals for a total of 12 weeks. There was a decrease in MASI scores in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in mean percentage reduction in MASI scores between the 2 routes of drug administration, further suggesting the effectiveness of TXA independent of administration route. Two patients in group A relapsed at 24 weeks, and there were no relapses in group B, which may suggest a minimal superiority of TXA plus microneedling at providing more sustainable results compared with oral TXA alone. A notable limitation of this study was a high dropout rate as well as lack of long-term follow-up with participants, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions.²⁴

Cassiano et al²⁵ assigned 64 women with melasma to 1 of 3 treatment groups or a control group to compare the effectiveness of microneedling (M group: 1.5 mm; 2 sessions), oral TXA (T group: 250 mg/d twice daily for 60 days), and a combination of microneedling (2 sessions) and oral TXA (MT group: 250 mg/d twice daily for 60 days)with placebo for clinically reducing melasma lesions. The intervention period was 60 days followed by a 60-day maintenance phase for a total study period of 120 days. The researchers evaluated mMASI scores, quality of life, and difference in colorimetric luminosity. All treatment groups showed a reduction in mMASI scores at both 30 days and 60 days, indicating improved melasma severity. The MT and T groups had more significant improvement at 30 days compared with the control group (P<.03), suggesting that microneedling plus TXA and TXA alone promote faster improvement in melasma lesions. By 60 days, the M, T, and MT groups outperformed the control group, with no significant differences between the M, T, and MT groups. However, at the 120-day maintenance follow-up, the T group did not maintain its improvement compared with the control group. The M and MT groups showed no significance difference in effectiveness at 120 days, suggesting that microneedling may promote less frequent relapse and sustained remission compared to TXA alone.²⁵

Hydroquinone for Melasma—Additional studies on the use of TXA treatments show that TXA may be an equally effective alternative to the standard use of hydroquinone treatment. Shamsi Meymandi et al²⁶ did not find a statistically significant difference in treatment with TXA plus microneedling vs the standard regimen of hydroquinone. More importantly, patient and physician satisfaction assessments were similar between the 2 groups. Compared to hydroquinone, nightly treatment is not necessary with microneedling and TXA.²⁶

Xing et al²⁷ supported these conclusions with their study. They compared 3 study arms for a duration of 12 weeks: group A received topical 1.8% liposomal TXA BID, group B received stamp-mode electric microneedling with 5% TXA weekly, and group C applied 2% ­hydroquinone cream nightly. The study concluded that all 3 groups showed a significant reduction in mean MI by the end of the study, but a better MI improvement was observed in groups B and C (both P<.001) compared with group A (P<.01).²⁷

Zaky et al²⁸ showed that both hydroquinone and combination treatment of TXA plus microneedling are effective at improving melasma lesions. Further studies are needed to definitively conclude if combination treatment is more efficacious than hydroquinone; if the combination is more effective, it provides a treatment option for patients with melasma who may not be good candidates for hydroquinone treatment.

Study Limitations—One limitation in all the studies evaluated is the sample size. Because they all had small sample sizes, it is difficult to definitively conclude that the combination TXA and microneedling is an effective and appropriate treatment for patients with melasma. Furthermore, the quality of these studies was mostly dependent on subjectivity of the mMASI scores. Future large randomized controlled trials with a diverse participant population are needed to assess the effectiveness of TXA and microneedling in melasma treatment.

Another limitation is that many of the studies did not follow the patients longitudinally, which did not allow for an evaluation of whether patients had a relapse of melasma. Due to the chronic nature of melasma and frequent disease recurrence, future longitudinal studies are needed to monitor for disease recurrence.

Conclusion

Tranexamic acid and microneedling are potential treatment options for patients with melasma, and combination therapy appears more effective than either TXA or microneedling alone at providing sustained improvement of melasma lesions. Combination therapy appears safe and well tolerated, but its effect on reducing long-term disease recurrence is yet to be established.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved axatilimab (Niktimvo, Incyte Corporation and Syndax) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) who have not responded to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy and who weigh ≥ 40 kg.

Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.

The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial. 

Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.

The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks. 

The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months. 

In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea. 

In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort. 

“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved axatilimab (Niktimvo, Incyte Corporation and Syndax) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) who have not responded to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy and who weigh ≥ 40 kg.

Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.

The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial. 

Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.

The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks. 

The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months. 

In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea. 

In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort. 

“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved axatilimab (Niktimvo, Incyte Corporation and Syndax) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) who have not responded to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy and who weigh ≥ 40 kg.

Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.

The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial. 

Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.

The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks. 

The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months. 

In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea. 

In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort. 

“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women in a large North American sample reported nearly double the rate of cannabidiol (CBD) use compared with nonpregnant women, new data published in a research letter in Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates.

Healthcare providers should be aware of the high rate of CBD use in pregnancy, especially as legal use of cannabis is increasing faster than evidence on outcomes for exposed offspring, note the researchers, led by Devika Bhatia, MD, from the Department of Psychiatry, Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In an accompanying editorial, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, deputy editor for obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, writes that the study “is critically important.” She points out that pregnant individuals may perceive that CBD is a safe drug to use in pregnancy, despite there being essentially no data examining whether or not this is the case.

Large Dataset From United States and Canada

Researchers used data from the International Cannabis Policy Study (2019-2021), a repeated cross-sectional survey of people aged 16-65 years in the United States and Canada. There were 66,457 women in the sample, including 1096 pregnant women.

Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the prenatal use of CBD-only products. Those products are advertised to contain only CBD, rather than tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They point out CBD-only products are often legal in North America and often marketed as supplements.

The prevalence of CBD-only use in pregnant women in the study was 20.4% compared with 11.3% among nonpregnant women, P < .001. The top reason for use by pregnant women was anxiety (58.4%). Other top reasons included depression (40.3%), posttraumatic stress disorder (32.1%), pain (52.3%), headache (35.6%), and nausea or vomiting (31.9%).

“Nonpregnant women were significantly more likely to report using CBD for pain, sleep, general well-being, and ‘other’ physical or mental health reasons, or to not use CBD for mental health,” the authors write, adding that the reasons for CBD use highlight drivers that may be important to address in treating pregnant patients.
 

Provider Endorsement in Some Cases

Dr. Metz, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology with the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, says in some cases women may be getting endorsement of CBD use from their provider or at least implied support when CBD is prescribed. In the study, pregnant women had 2.33 times greater adjusted odds of having a CBD prescription than nonpregnant women (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.88).

She points to another cross-sectional study of more than 10,000 participants using PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) data that found that “from 2017 to 2019, 63% of pregnant women reported that they were not told to avoid cannabis use in pregnancy, and 8% noted that they were advised to use cannabis by their prenatal care practitioner.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against prescribing cannabis products for pregnant or lactating women.

Studies that have explored THC and its metabolites have shown “a consistent association between cannabis use and decreased fetal growth,” Dr. Metz noted. “There also remain persistent concerns about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of maternal cannabis use on the fetus and, subsequently, the newborn.”

Limitations of the study include the self-reported responses and participants’ ability to accurately distinguish between CBD-only and THC-containing products.

Because self-reports of CBD use in pregnancy may be drastically underestimated and nonreliable, Dr. Metz writes, development of blood and urine screens to help detect CBD product use “will be helpful in moving the field forward.”

Study senior author David Hammond, PhD, has been a paid expert witness on behalf of public health authorities in response to legal challenges from the cannabis, tobacco, vaping, and food industries. Other authors did not report any potential conflicts. Dr. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer, and grants from Pfizer for her role as a site principal investigator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for her role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study.

Pregnant women in a large North American sample reported nearly double the rate of cannabidiol (CBD) use compared with nonpregnant women, new data published in a research letter in Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates.

Healthcare providers should be aware of the high rate of CBD use in pregnancy, especially as legal use of cannabis is increasing faster than evidence on outcomes for exposed offspring, note the researchers, led by Devika Bhatia, MD, from the Department of Psychiatry, Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In an accompanying editorial, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, deputy editor for obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, writes that the study “is critically important.” She points out that pregnant individuals may perceive that CBD is a safe drug to use in pregnancy, despite there being essentially no data examining whether or not this is the case.

Large Dataset From United States and Canada

Researchers used data from the International Cannabis Policy Study (2019-2021), a repeated cross-sectional survey of people aged 16-65 years in the United States and Canada. There were 66,457 women in the sample, including 1096 pregnant women.

Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the prenatal use of CBD-only products. Those products are advertised to contain only CBD, rather than tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They point out CBD-only products are often legal in North America and often marketed as supplements.

The prevalence of CBD-only use in pregnant women in the study was 20.4% compared with 11.3% among nonpregnant women, P < .001. The top reason for use by pregnant women was anxiety (58.4%). Other top reasons included depression (40.3%), posttraumatic stress disorder (32.1%), pain (52.3%), headache (35.6%), and nausea or vomiting (31.9%).

“Nonpregnant women were significantly more likely to report using CBD for pain, sleep, general well-being, and ‘other’ physical or mental health reasons, or to not use CBD for mental health,” the authors write, adding that the reasons for CBD use highlight drivers that may be important to address in treating pregnant patients.
 

Provider Endorsement in Some Cases

Dr. Metz, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology with the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, says in some cases women may be getting endorsement of CBD use from their provider or at least implied support when CBD is prescribed. In the study, pregnant women had 2.33 times greater adjusted odds of having a CBD prescription than nonpregnant women (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.88).

She points to another cross-sectional study of more than 10,000 participants using PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) data that found that “from 2017 to 2019, 63% of pregnant women reported that they were not told to avoid cannabis use in pregnancy, and 8% noted that they were advised to use cannabis by their prenatal care practitioner.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against prescribing cannabis products for pregnant or lactating women.

Studies that have explored THC and its metabolites have shown “a consistent association between cannabis use and decreased fetal growth,” Dr. Metz noted. “There also remain persistent concerns about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of maternal cannabis use on the fetus and, subsequently, the newborn.”

Limitations of the study include the self-reported responses and participants’ ability to accurately distinguish between CBD-only and THC-containing products.

Because self-reports of CBD use in pregnancy may be drastically underestimated and nonreliable, Dr. Metz writes, development of blood and urine screens to help detect CBD product use “will be helpful in moving the field forward.”

Study senior author David Hammond, PhD, has been a paid expert witness on behalf of public health authorities in response to legal challenges from the cannabis, tobacco, vaping, and food industries. Other authors did not report any potential conflicts. Dr. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer, and grants from Pfizer for her role as a site principal investigator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for her role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study.

Pregnant women in a large North American sample reported nearly double the rate of cannabidiol (CBD) use compared with nonpregnant women, new data published in a research letter in Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates.

Healthcare providers should be aware of the high rate of CBD use in pregnancy, especially as legal use of cannabis is increasing faster than evidence on outcomes for exposed offspring, note the researchers, led by Devika Bhatia, MD, from the Department of Psychiatry, Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In an accompanying editorial, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, deputy editor for obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, writes that the study “is critically important.” She points out that pregnant individuals may perceive that CBD is a safe drug to use in pregnancy, despite there being essentially no data examining whether or not this is the case.

Large Dataset From United States and Canada

Researchers used data from the International Cannabis Policy Study (2019-2021), a repeated cross-sectional survey of people aged 16-65 years in the United States and Canada. There were 66,457 women in the sample, including 1096 pregnant women.

Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the prenatal use of CBD-only products. Those products are advertised to contain only CBD, rather than tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They point out CBD-only products are often legal in North America and often marketed as supplements.

The prevalence of CBD-only use in pregnant women in the study was 20.4% compared with 11.3% among nonpregnant women, P < .001. The top reason for use by pregnant women was anxiety (58.4%). Other top reasons included depression (40.3%), posttraumatic stress disorder (32.1%), pain (52.3%), headache (35.6%), and nausea or vomiting (31.9%).

“Nonpregnant women were significantly more likely to report using CBD for pain, sleep, general well-being, and ‘other’ physical or mental health reasons, or to not use CBD for mental health,” the authors write, adding that the reasons for CBD use highlight drivers that may be important to address in treating pregnant patients.
 

Provider Endorsement in Some Cases

Dr. Metz, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology with the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, says in some cases women may be getting endorsement of CBD use from their provider or at least implied support when CBD is prescribed. In the study, pregnant women had 2.33 times greater adjusted odds of having a CBD prescription than nonpregnant women (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.88).

She points to another cross-sectional study of more than 10,000 participants using PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) data that found that “from 2017 to 2019, 63% of pregnant women reported that they were not told to avoid cannabis use in pregnancy, and 8% noted that they were advised to use cannabis by their prenatal care practitioner.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against prescribing cannabis products for pregnant or lactating women.

Studies that have explored THC and its metabolites have shown “a consistent association between cannabis use and decreased fetal growth,” Dr. Metz noted. “There also remain persistent concerns about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of maternal cannabis use on the fetus and, subsequently, the newborn.”

Limitations of the study include the self-reported responses and participants’ ability to accurately distinguish between CBD-only and THC-containing products.

Because self-reports of CBD use in pregnancy may be drastically underestimated and nonreliable, Dr. Metz writes, development of blood and urine screens to help detect CBD product use “will be helpful in moving the field forward.”

Study senior author David Hammond, PhD, has been a paid expert witness on behalf of public health authorities in response to legal challenges from the cannabis, tobacco, vaping, and food industries. Other authors did not report any potential conflicts. Dr. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer, and grants from Pfizer for her role as a site principal investigator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for her role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study.

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

In a bid to reduce stigma and improve treatment rates, a small group of clinicians, as well as military personnel, is lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to change the name of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). The APA’s policy is that a rolling name change is available if the current term is determined to be harmful.

Currently led by anesthesiologist Eugene Lipov, MD, clinical assistant professor, University of Illinois Chicago, and chief medical officer of Stella Center, also in Chicago, the formal request for the proposed name change to the APA’s DSM-5-TR Steering Committee in August 2023.

The APA Steering Committee rejected the proposed name change in November 2023, citing a “lack of convincing evidence.” However, Dr. Lipov and colleagues remain undeterred and continue to advocate for the change.

“The word ‘disorder’ is both imprecise and stigmatizing,” Dr. Lipov said. “Because of stigma, many people with PTSD — especially those in the military — don’t get help, which my research has demonstrated.”

Patients are more likely to seek help if their symptoms are framed as manifestations of an injury that is diagnosable and treatable, like a broken leg, Dr. Lipov said. “Stigma can kill in very real ways, since delayed care or lack of care can directly lead to suicides, thus satisfying the reduce harm requirement for the name change.”
 

Neurobiology of Trauma

Dr. Lipov grew up with a veteran father affected by PTSD and a mother with debilitating depression who eventually took her life. “I understand the impact of trauma very well,” he said.

Although not a psychiatrist, Dr. Lipov pioneered a highly successful treatment for PTSD by adapting an anesthetic technique — the stellate ganglion block (SGB) — to reverse many trauma symptoms through the process of “rebooting.”

This involves reversing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system — the fight-or-flight response — to the pretrauma state by anesthetizing the sympathetic ganglion in the neck. Investigating how SGB can help ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD led him to investigate and describe the neurobiology of PTSD and the mechanism of action of SGB.

The impact of SGD on PTSD was supported by a small neuroimaging study demonstrating that the right amygdala — the area of the brain associated with the fear response — was overactivated in patients with PTSD but that this region was deactivated after the administration of SGB, Dr. Lipov said.

“I believe that psychiatric conditions are actually physiologic brain changes that can be measured by advanced neuroimaging technologies and then physiologically treated,” he stated.

He noted that a growing body of literature suggests that use of the SGB for PTSD can be effective “because PTSD has a neurobiological basis and is essentially caused by an actual injury to the brain.”
 

A Natural Response, Not a Disorder

Dr. Lipov’s clinical work treating PTSD as a brain injury led him to connect with Frank Ochberg, MD, a founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and former director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.

In 2012, Dr. Ochberg teamed up with retired Army General Peter Chiarelli and Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, to petition the DSM-5 Steering Committee to change the name of PTSD to PTSI in the upcoming DSM-5.

Dr. Ochberg explained that Gen. Chiarelli believed the term “disorder” suggests a preexisting issue prior to enlistment, potentially making an individual appear “weak.” He noted that this stigma is particularly troubling for military personnel, who often avoid seeking so they are not perceived as vulnerable, which can lead to potentially dire consequences, including suicide.

“We received endorsements from many quarters, not only advocates for service members or veterans,” Dr. Ochberg said.

This included feminists like Gloria Steinem, who championed the rights of women who had survived rape, incest, and domestic violence. As one advocate put it: “The natural human reaction to a life-threatening event should not be labeled a disorder.”

The DSM-5 Steering Committee declined to change the name. “Their feeling was that if we change the word ‘disorder’ to something else, we’d have to change every condition in the DSM that’s called a ‘disorder’. And they felt there really was nothing wrong with the word,” said Dr. Ochberg.

However, Dr. Lipov noted that other diagnoses have undergone name changes in the DSM for the sake of accuracy or stigma reduction. For example, the term mental retardation (DSM-IV) was changed to intellectual disability in DSM-5, and gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria.

A decade later, Dr. Lipov decided to try again. To bolster his contention, he conducted a telephone survey of 1025 individuals. Of these, about 50% had a PTSD diagnosis.

Approximately two thirds of respondents agreed that a name change to PTSI would reduce the stigma associated with the term “PTSD.” Over half said it would increase the likelihood they would seek medical help. Those diagnosed with PTSD were most likely to endorse the name change.

Dr. Lipov conducts an ongoing survey of psychiatrists to ascertain their views on the potential name change and hopes to include findings in future research and communication with the DSM-5 Steering Committee. In addition, he has developed a new survey that expands upon his original survey, which specifically looked at individuals with PTSD.

“The new survey includes a wide range of people, many of whom have never been diagnosed. One of the questions we ask is whether they’ve ever heard of PTSD, and then we ask them about their reaction to the term,” he said.
 

A Barrier to Care

Psychiatrist Marcel Green, MD, director of Hudson Mind in New York City, refers to himself as an “interventional psychiatrist,” as he employs a comprehensive approach that includes not only medication and psychotherapy but also specialized techniques like SBG for severe anxiety-related physical symptoms and certain pain conditions.

Dr. Green, who is not involved in the name change initiative, agrees that the term “disorder” carries more stigma than “injury” for many groups, including those who have experienced childhood trauma, those struggling with substance abuse, or who are from backgrounds or peer groups where seeking mental health care is stigmatized.

Patients like these “are looking to me to give them a language to frame what they’re going through, and I tell them their symptoms are consistent with PTSD,” he said. “But they tell me don’t see themselves as having a disorder, which hinders their pursuit of care.”

Framing the condition as an “injury” also aligns with the approach of using biologic interventions to address the injury. Dr. Green has found SGB helpful in treating substance abuse disorder too, “which is a form of escape from the hyperactivation that accompanies PTSD.” And after the procedure, “they’re more receptive to therapy.”

Unfortunately, said Dr. Lipov, the DSM Steering Committee rejected his proposed name change, stating that the “concept of disorder as a dividing line from, eg, normal reactions to stress, is a core concept in the DSM, and the term has only rarely been removed.”

Moreover, the committee “did not see sufficient evidence ... that the name PTSD is stigmatizing and actually deters people with the disorder from seeking treatment who would not be deterred from doing so by PTSI.”
 

‘An Avenue for Dignity’

Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), noted that the organization does not have an official position on this issue. However, he shared his own personal perspective.

There may be merit in the proposed name change, said Dr. Duckworth, but more evidence is needed. “If it’s clear, after rigorous studies have been performed and there’s compelling data, that calling it a ‘disorder’ rather than an ‘injury’ is actually preventing people from getting the care they need, then it merits serious attention.”

If so, Dr. Duckworth would be “interested in having a conversation with the policy team at NAMI to start to see if we could activate the DSM Committee.”

Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the name change initiative is a “really interesting proposal.”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto, who is not involved in the initiative, has also heard “many people say that the term ‘disorder’ is stigmatizing and might even come across as pejorative in some ways.”

By contrast, “the word ‘injury’ parallels physical injury, and what we currently call ‘PTSD’ is a psychological or emotional injury no less devastating than torn tissue or broken bones,” added Dr. McIntyre, who is also the chairman of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Dr. Ochberg agreed. “In the military, ‘injury’ opens up an avenue for dignity, for a medal. Being injured and learning how to deal with an injury is part of having yet another honorable task that comes from being an honorable person who did an honorable thing.”

While disappointed, Dr. Lipov does not plan to give up on his vision. “I will continue to amass evidence that the word ‘PTSD’ is stigmatizing and indeed does prevent people from seeking care and will resubmit the proposal to the DSM Steering Committee when I have gathered a larger body of compelling evidence.”

Currently, Dr. Lipov is in active discussions with the special operations force of the US Army to obtain more evidence. “This will be the follow-up to bolster the opinion of Peter Chiarelli,” he said. “It is known that suicide and PTSD are highly related. This is especially urgent and relevant because recent data suggest suicide rate of military personnel in the VA may be as high as 44 per day,” Dr. Lipov said.

Dr. Lipov is the chief medical officer and an investor in the Stella Center. Dr. Green performs SGBs as part of his psychiatric practice. Drs. Ochberg, McIntyre, and Duckworth reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a bid to reduce stigma and improve treatment rates, a small group of clinicians, as well as military personnel, is lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to change the name of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). The APA’s policy is that a rolling name change is available if the current term is determined to be harmful.

Currently led by anesthesiologist Eugene Lipov, MD, clinical assistant professor, University of Illinois Chicago, and chief medical officer of Stella Center, also in Chicago, the formal request for the proposed name change to the APA’s DSM-5-TR Steering Committee in August 2023.

The APA Steering Committee rejected the proposed name change in November 2023, citing a “lack of convincing evidence.” However, Dr. Lipov and colleagues remain undeterred and continue to advocate for the change.

“The word ‘disorder’ is both imprecise and stigmatizing,” Dr. Lipov said. “Because of stigma, many people with PTSD — especially those in the military — don’t get help, which my research has demonstrated.”

Patients are more likely to seek help if their symptoms are framed as manifestations of an injury that is diagnosable and treatable, like a broken leg, Dr. Lipov said. “Stigma can kill in very real ways, since delayed care or lack of care can directly lead to suicides, thus satisfying the reduce harm requirement for the name change.”
 

Neurobiology of Trauma

Dr. Lipov grew up with a veteran father affected by PTSD and a mother with debilitating depression who eventually took her life. “I understand the impact of trauma very well,” he said.

Although not a psychiatrist, Dr. Lipov pioneered a highly successful treatment for PTSD by adapting an anesthetic technique — the stellate ganglion block (SGB) — to reverse many trauma symptoms through the process of “rebooting.”

This involves reversing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system — the fight-or-flight response — to the pretrauma state by anesthetizing the sympathetic ganglion in the neck. Investigating how SGB can help ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD led him to investigate and describe the neurobiology of PTSD and the mechanism of action of SGB.

The impact of SGD on PTSD was supported by a small neuroimaging study demonstrating that the right amygdala — the area of the brain associated with the fear response — was overactivated in patients with PTSD but that this region was deactivated after the administration of SGB, Dr. Lipov said.

“I believe that psychiatric conditions are actually physiologic brain changes that can be measured by advanced neuroimaging technologies and then physiologically treated,” he stated.

He noted that a growing body of literature suggests that use of the SGB for PTSD can be effective “because PTSD has a neurobiological basis and is essentially caused by an actual injury to the brain.”
 

A Natural Response, Not a Disorder

Dr. Lipov’s clinical work treating PTSD as a brain injury led him to connect with Frank Ochberg, MD, a founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and former director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.

In 2012, Dr. Ochberg teamed up with retired Army General Peter Chiarelli and Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, to petition the DSM-5 Steering Committee to change the name of PTSD to PTSI in the upcoming DSM-5.

Dr. Ochberg explained that Gen. Chiarelli believed the term “disorder” suggests a preexisting issue prior to enlistment, potentially making an individual appear “weak.” He noted that this stigma is particularly troubling for military personnel, who often avoid seeking so they are not perceived as vulnerable, which can lead to potentially dire consequences, including suicide.

“We received endorsements from many quarters, not only advocates for service members or veterans,” Dr. Ochberg said.

This included feminists like Gloria Steinem, who championed the rights of women who had survived rape, incest, and domestic violence. As one advocate put it: “The natural human reaction to a life-threatening event should not be labeled a disorder.”

The DSM-5 Steering Committee declined to change the name. “Their feeling was that if we change the word ‘disorder’ to something else, we’d have to change every condition in the DSM that’s called a ‘disorder’. And they felt there really was nothing wrong with the word,” said Dr. Ochberg.

However, Dr. Lipov noted that other diagnoses have undergone name changes in the DSM for the sake of accuracy or stigma reduction. For example, the term mental retardation (DSM-IV) was changed to intellectual disability in DSM-5, and gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria.

A decade later, Dr. Lipov decided to try again. To bolster his contention, he conducted a telephone survey of 1025 individuals. Of these, about 50% had a PTSD diagnosis.

Approximately two thirds of respondents agreed that a name change to PTSI would reduce the stigma associated with the term “PTSD.” Over half said it would increase the likelihood they would seek medical help. Those diagnosed with PTSD were most likely to endorse the name change.

Dr. Lipov conducts an ongoing survey of psychiatrists to ascertain their views on the potential name change and hopes to include findings in future research and communication with the DSM-5 Steering Committee. In addition, he has developed a new survey that expands upon his original survey, which specifically looked at individuals with PTSD.

“The new survey includes a wide range of people, many of whom have never been diagnosed. One of the questions we ask is whether they’ve ever heard of PTSD, and then we ask them about their reaction to the term,” he said.
 

A Barrier to Care

Psychiatrist Marcel Green, MD, director of Hudson Mind in New York City, refers to himself as an “interventional psychiatrist,” as he employs a comprehensive approach that includes not only medication and psychotherapy but also specialized techniques like SBG for severe anxiety-related physical symptoms and certain pain conditions.

Dr. Green, who is not involved in the name change initiative, agrees that the term “disorder” carries more stigma than “injury” for many groups, including those who have experienced childhood trauma, those struggling with substance abuse, or who are from backgrounds or peer groups where seeking mental health care is stigmatized.

Patients like these “are looking to me to give them a language to frame what they’re going through, and I tell them their symptoms are consistent with PTSD,” he said. “But they tell me don’t see themselves as having a disorder, which hinders their pursuit of care.”

Framing the condition as an “injury” also aligns with the approach of using biologic interventions to address the injury. Dr. Green has found SGB helpful in treating substance abuse disorder too, “which is a form of escape from the hyperactivation that accompanies PTSD.” And after the procedure, “they’re more receptive to therapy.”

Unfortunately, said Dr. Lipov, the DSM Steering Committee rejected his proposed name change, stating that the “concept of disorder as a dividing line from, eg, normal reactions to stress, is a core concept in the DSM, and the term has only rarely been removed.”

Moreover, the committee “did not see sufficient evidence ... that the name PTSD is stigmatizing and actually deters people with the disorder from seeking treatment who would not be deterred from doing so by PTSI.”
 

‘An Avenue for Dignity’

Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), noted that the organization does not have an official position on this issue. However, he shared his own personal perspective.

There may be merit in the proposed name change, said Dr. Duckworth, but more evidence is needed. “If it’s clear, after rigorous studies have been performed and there’s compelling data, that calling it a ‘disorder’ rather than an ‘injury’ is actually preventing people from getting the care they need, then it merits serious attention.”

If so, Dr. Duckworth would be “interested in having a conversation with the policy team at NAMI to start to see if we could activate the DSM Committee.”

Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the name change initiative is a “really interesting proposal.”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto, who is not involved in the initiative, has also heard “many people say that the term ‘disorder’ is stigmatizing and might even come across as pejorative in some ways.”

By contrast, “the word ‘injury’ parallels physical injury, and what we currently call ‘PTSD’ is a psychological or emotional injury no less devastating than torn tissue or broken bones,” added Dr. McIntyre, who is also the chairman of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Dr. Ochberg agreed. “In the military, ‘injury’ opens up an avenue for dignity, for a medal. Being injured and learning how to deal with an injury is part of having yet another honorable task that comes from being an honorable person who did an honorable thing.”

While disappointed, Dr. Lipov does not plan to give up on his vision. “I will continue to amass evidence that the word ‘PTSD’ is stigmatizing and indeed does prevent people from seeking care and will resubmit the proposal to the DSM Steering Committee when I have gathered a larger body of compelling evidence.”

Currently, Dr. Lipov is in active discussions with the special operations force of the US Army to obtain more evidence. “This will be the follow-up to bolster the opinion of Peter Chiarelli,” he said. “It is known that suicide and PTSD are highly related. This is especially urgent and relevant because recent data suggest suicide rate of military personnel in the VA may be as high as 44 per day,” Dr. Lipov said.

Dr. Lipov is the chief medical officer and an investor in the Stella Center. Dr. Green performs SGBs as part of his psychiatric practice. Drs. Ochberg, McIntyre, and Duckworth reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a bid to reduce stigma and improve treatment rates, a small group of clinicians, as well as military personnel, is lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to change the name of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). The APA’s policy is that a rolling name change is available if the current term is determined to be harmful.

Currently led by anesthesiologist Eugene Lipov, MD, clinical assistant professor, University of Illinois Chicago, and chief medical officer of Stella Center, also in Chicago, the formal request for the proposed name change to the APA’s DSM-5-TR Steering Committee in August 2023.

The APA Steering Committee rejected the proposed name change in November 2023, citing a “lack of convincing evidence.” However, Dr. Lipov and colleagues remain undeterred and continue to advocate for the change.

“The word ‘disorder’ is both imprecise and stigmatizing,” Dr. Lipov said. “Because of stigma, many people with PTSD — especially those in the military — don’t get help, which my research has demonstrated.”

Patients are more likely to seek help if their symptoms are framed as manifestations of an injury that is diagnosable and treatable, like a broken leg, Dr. Lipov said. “Stigma can kill in very real ways, since delayed care or lack of care can directly lead to suicides, thus satisfying the reduce harm requirement for the name change.”
 

Neurobiology of Trauma

Dr. Lipov grew up with a veteran father affected by PTSD and a mother with debilitating depression who eventually took her life. “I understand the impact of trauma very well,” he said.

Although not a psychiatrist, Dr. Lipov pioneered a highly successful treatment for PTSD by adapting an anesthetic technique — the stellate ganglion block (SGB) — to reverse many trauma symptoms through the process of “rebooting.”

This involves reversing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system — the fight-or-flight response — to the pretrauma state by anesthetizing the sympathetic ganglion in the neck. Investigating how SGB can help ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD led him to investigate and describe the neurobiology of PTSD and the mechanism of action of SGB.

The impact of SGD on PTSD was supported by a small neuroimaging study demonstrating that the right amygdala — the area of the brain associated with the fear response — was overactivated in patients with PTSD but that this region was deactivated after the administration of SGB, Dr. Lipov said.

“I believe that psychiatric conditions are actually physiologic brain changes that can be measured by advanced neuroimaging technologies and then physiologically treated,” he stated.

He noted that a growing body of literature suggests that use of the SGB for PTSD can be effective “because PTSD has a neurobiological basis and is essentially caused by an actual injury to the brain.”
 

A Natural Response, Not a Disorder

Dr. Lipov’s clinical work treating PTSD as a brain injury led him to connect with Frank Ochberg, MD, a founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and former director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.

In 2012, Dr. Ochberg teamed up with retired Army General Peter Chiarelli and Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, to petition the DSM-5 Steering Committee to change the name of PTSD to PTSI in the upcoming DSM-5.

Dr. Ochberg explained that Gen. Chiarelli believed the term “disorder” suggests a preexisting issue prior to enlistment, potentially making an individual appear “weak.” He noted that this stigma is particularly troubling for military personnel, who often avoid seeking so they are not perceived as vulnerable, which can lead to potentially dire consequences, including suicide.

“We received endorsements from many quarters, not only advocates for service members or veterans,” Dr. Ochberg said.

This included feminists like Gloria Steinem, who championed the rights of women who had survived rape, incest, and domestic violence. As one advocate put it: “The natural human reaction to a life-threatening event should not be labeled a disorder.”

The DSM-5 Steering Committee declined to change the name. “Their feeling was that if we change the word ‘disorder’ to something else, we’d have to change every condition in the DSM that’s called a ‘disorder’. And they felt there really was nothing wrong with the word,” said Dr. Ochberg.

However, Dr. Lipov noted that other diagnoses have undergone name changes in the DSM for the sake of accuracy or stigma reduction. For example, the term mental retardation (DSM-IV) was changed to intellectual disability in DSM-5, and gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria.

A decade later, Dr. Lipov decided to try again. To bolster his contention, he conducted a telephone survey of 1025 individuals. Of these, about 50% had a PTSD diagnosis.

Approximately two thirds of respondents agreed that a name change to PTSI would reduce the stigma associated with the term “PTSD.” Over half said it would increase the likelihood they would seek medical help. Those diagnosed with PTSD were most likely to endorse the name change.

Dr. Lipov conducts an ongoing survey of psychiatrists to ascertain their views on the potential name change and hopes to include findings in future research and communication with the DSM-5 Steering Committee. In addition, he has developed a new survey that expands upon his original survey, which specifically looked at individuals with PTSD.

“The new survey includes a wide range of people, many of whom have never been diagnosed. One of the questions we ask is whether they’ve ever heard of PTSD, and then we ask them about their reaction to the term,” he said.
 

A Barrier to Care

Psychiatrist Marcel Green, MD, director of Hudson Mind in New York City, refers to himself as an “interventional psychiatrist,” as he employs a comprehensive approach that includes not only medication and psychotherapy but also specialized techniques like SBG for severe anxiety-related physical symptoms and certain pain conditions.

Dr. Green, who is not involved in the name change initiative, agrees that the term “disorder” carries more stigma than “injury” for many groups, including those who have experienced childhood trauma, those struggling with substance abuse, or who are from backgrounds or peer groups where seeking mental health care is stigmatized.

Patients like these “are looking to me to give them a language to frame what they’re going through, and I tell them their symptoms are consistent with PTSD,” he said. “But they tell me don’t see themselves as having a disorder, which hinders their pursuit of care.”

Framing the condition as an “injury” also aligns with the approach of using biologic interventions to address the injury. Dr. Green has found SGB helpful in treating substance abuse disorder too, “which is a form of escape from the hyperactivation that accompanies PTSD.” And after the procedure, “they’re more receptive to therapy.”

Unfortunately, said Dr. Lipov, the DSM Steering Committee rejected his proposed name change, stating that the “concept of disorder as a dividing line from, eg, normal reactions to stress, is a core concept in the DSM, and the term has only rarely been removed.”

Moreover, the committee “did not see sufficient evidence ... that the name PTSD is stigmatizing and actually deters people with the disorder from seeking treatment who would not be deterred from doing so by PTSI.”
 

‘An Avenue for Dignity’

Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), noted that the organization does not have an official position on this issue. However, he shared his own personal perspective.

There may be merit in the proposed name change, said Dr. Duckworth, but more evidence is needed. “If it’s clear, after rigorous studies have been performed and there’s compelling data, that calling it a ‘disorder’ rather than an ‘injury’ is actually preventing people from getting the care they need, then it merits serious attention.”

If so, Dr. Duckworth would be “interested in having a conversation with the policy team at NAMI to start to see if we could activate the DSM Committee.”

Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the name change initiative is a “really interesting proposal.”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto, who is not involved in the initiative, has also heard “many people say that the term ‘disorder’ is stigmatizing and might even come across as pejorative in some ways.”

By contrast, “the word ‘injury’ parallels physical injury, and what we currently call ‘PTSD’ is a psychological or emotional injury no less devastating than torn tissue or broken bones,” added Dr. McIntyre, who is also the chairman of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Dr. Ochberg agreed. “In the military, ‘injury’ opens up an avenue for dignity, for a medal. Being injured and learning how to deal with an injury is part of having yet another honorable task that comes from being an honorable person who did an honorable thing.”

While disappointed, Dr. Lipov does not plan to give up on his vision. “I will continue to amass evidence that the word ‘PTSD’ is stigmatizing and indeed does prevent people from seeking care and will resubmit the proposal to the DSM Steering Committee when I have gathered a larger body of compelling evidence.”

Currently, Dr. Lipov is in active discussions with the special operations force of the US Army to obtain more evidence. “This will be the follow-up to bolster the opinion of Peter Chiarelli,” he said. “It is known that suicide and PTSD are highly related. This is especially urgent and relevant because recent data suggest suicide rate of military personnel in the VA may be as high as 44 per day,” Dr. Lipov said.

Dr. Lipov is the chief medical officer and an investor in the Stella Center. Dr. Green performs SGBs as part of his psychiatric practice. Drs. Ochberg, McIntyre, and Duckworth reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.