Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Adding the investigational twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) to insulin glargine significantly improves blood glucose control after 40 weeks, compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes, new research shows.  

The novel once-weekly injectable agent is nicknamed a twincretin because it combines two different gut-hormone activities. It works both as a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

Findings from the randomized phase 3 SURPASS-5 clinical trial were published online Feb. 8 in JAMA.

This is the latest in a series of SURPASS trials of tirzepatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes for which results have been presented at various conferences, announced by the company, and/or published since late 2020.

SURPASS-5 specifically investigated the effect on glycemic control of adding three different doses of once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide compared with placebo in 475 adults who hadn’t achieved target A1c levels using insulin glargine with or without metformin. Statistically significant reductions in A1c were found at 40 weeks for all three doses.

Moreover, authors Dominik Dahl, MD, group practice for internal medicine and diabetology, Hamburg, Germany, and colleagues note that the improvements in the tirzepatide groups “were associated with significantly lower insulin glargine use and significant bodyweight reduction compared with placebo.”

“Despite the differences in glycemic control between the tirzepatide and placebo groups, the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was below one event per patient-year in all treatment groups,” they add.

However, concerns about the study protocol and generalizability were raised in an accompanying editorial by Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, of the School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Importantly, the study did not compare tirzepatide with other treatments that could have been used to target the postprandial glycemic pattern of the study population,” he writes.

And ultimately, he says: “Even though the results of this investigation are important for demonstrating the potential clinical benefit of [tirzepatide], and may help to advance the goal of achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, the study may leave clinicians uncertain about when and how to best use tirzepatide to improve clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Significant A1c, weight reductions when added to insulin glargine

The randomized, phase 3 SURPASS-5 trial was conducted at 45 centers in eight countries between August 2019 and January 2021. The 475 adult participants had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled (baseline A1c, 7.0%-10.5%) with once-daily insulin glargine, with or without metformin. They were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide in doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or volume-matched placebo injections over 40 weeks.

The mean changes from baseline in A1c at week 40, the primary study endpoint, were –2.11, –2.40, and –2.34 percentage points for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide, respectively (P < .001), versus a nonsignificant change of –0.86 percentage points with placebo. The differences from placebo at week 40 were also significant for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses (both P < .001).  

Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg tirzepatide met the A1c target of less than 7% at week 40, compared with placebo (85%-90% vs. 34%; P < .001). Significantly higher proportions of patients in the 10-mg and 15-mg dose groups also achieved A1c less than 5.7% (42% and 50%, respectively, vs. 3%).

Mean fasting glucose was also reduced significantly with all doses of tirzepatide by 58.2 mg/dL, 64.0 mg/dL, and 62.6 mg/dL, respectively, versus 39.2 mg/dL with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

At week 40, mean body weight reductions from baseline were 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs), 7.5 kg, and 8.8 kg versus just 1.6 kg with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

All three tirzepatide doses were also associated with significant improvements from baseline in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides.  
 

Gastrointestinal adverse events, hypoglycemia seen in minority

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups versus placebo were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea (12%-21% vs. 10%), nausea (13%-18% vs. 2.5%), vomiting (7%-13% vs. 2.5%), and decreased appetite (7%-14% vs. 1.7%). Most of these adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and decreased over time in the tirzepatide groups.

There were no deaths in the study. Serious adverse events were reported by 8%-11% in the tirzepatide groups, compared with 8% in the placebo group. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6.0%, 8.4%, and 10.8% of the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, versus 2.5% in the placebo group.

Rates of hypoglycemia (less than or equal to 70 mg/dL) ranged from 14.2% to 19.3% with tirzepatide versus 12.5% with placebo. There were three episodes of severe hypoglycemia (less than 54 mg/dL), two with 10 mg tirzepatide and one with 15 mg tirzepatide.
 

Editorial raises questions

In his editorial, Dr. Chipkin writes that the study “demonstrated that use of tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in A1c and weight in a fairly homogeneous cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine with or without metformin.”

“The protocol answered questions about efficacy but left open questions about generalizability and effectiveness in different populations, especially patients with certain complications or comorbid chronic diseases.” He also notes that younger adults and Black patients were not well-represented.

And the study didn’t allow for dividing up the glargine dose or for adding short-acting insulin before meals or any other pre-meal medications and “thus may represent a departure from usual care” in the setting of rising glucose levels.

The authors themselves acknowledge that “the postprandial glucose excursions observed in the placebo group suggest an additional prandial intervention was likely needed in some patients, despite the strict inclusion criteria and the treat-to-target-approach used in the study.”

Dr. Chipkin concludes that “although patients are likely to embrace a medication with weight loss outcomes, the protocol also leaves unanswered questions about reducing insulin and evaluating the comparative risk of adverse effects.”

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dahl has reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Afimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Chipkin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding the investigational twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) to insulin glargine significantly improves blood glucose control after 40 weeks, compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes, new research shows.  

The novel once-weekly injectable agent is nicknamed a twincretin because it combines two different gut-hormone activities. It works both as a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

Findings from the randomized phase 3 SURPASS-5 clinical trial were published online Feb. 8 in JAMA.

This is the latest in a series of SURPASS trials of tirzepatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes for which results have been presented at various conferences, announced by the company, and/or published since late 2020.

SURPASS-5 specifically investigated the effect on glycemic control of adding three different doses of once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide compared with placebo in 475 adults who hadn’t achieved target A1c levels using insulin glargine with or without metformin. Statistically significant reductions in A1c were found at 40 weeks for all three doses.

Moreover, authors Dominik Dahl, MD, group practice for internal medicine and diabetology, Hamburg, Germany, and colleagues note that the improvements in the tirzepatide groups “were associated with significantly lower insulin glargine use and significant bodyweight reduction compared with placebo.”

“Despite the differences in glycemic control between the tirzepatide and placebo groups, the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was below one event per patient-year in all treatment groups,” they add.

However, concerns about the study protocol and generalizability were raised in an accompanying editorial by Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, of the School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Importantly, the study did not compare tirzepatide with other treatments that could have been used to target the postprandial glycemic pattern of the study population,” he writes.

And ultimately, he says: “Even though the results of this investigation are important for demonstrating the potential clinical benefit of [tirzepatide], and may help to advance the goal of achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, the study may leave clinicians uncertain about when and how to best use tirzepatide to improve clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Significant A1c, weight reductions when added to insulin glargine

The randomized, phase 3 SURPASS-5 trial was conducted at 45 centers in eight countries between August 2019 and January 2021. The 475 adult participants had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled (baseline A1c, 7.0%-10.5%) with once-daily insulin glargine, with or without metformin. They were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide in doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or volume-matched placebo injections over 40 weeks.

The mean changes from baseline in A1c at week 40, the primary study endpoint, were –2.11, –2.40, and –2.34 percentage points for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide, respectively (P < .001), versus a nonsignificant change of –0.86 percentage points with placebo. The differences from placebo at week 40 were also significant for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses (both P < .001).  

Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg tirzepatide met the A1c target of less than 7% at week 40, compared with placebo (85%-90% vs. 34%; P < .001). Significantly higher proportions of patients in the 10-mg and 15-mg dose groups also achieved A1c less than 5.7% (42% and 50%, respectively, vs. 3%).

Mean fasting glucose was also reduced significantly with all doses of tirzepatide by 58.2 mg/dL, 64.0 mg/dL, and 62.6 mg/dL, respectively, versus 39.2 mg/dL with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

At week 40, mean body weight reductions from baseline were 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs), 7.5 kg, and 8.8 kg versus just 1.6 kg with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

All three tirzepatide doses were also associated with significant improvements from baseline in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides.  
 

Gastrointestinal adverse events, hypoglycemia seen in minority

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups versus placebo were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea (12%-21% vs. 10%), nausea (13%-18% vs. 2.5%), vomiting (7%-13% vs. 2.5%), and decreased appetite (7%-14% vs. 1.7%). Most of these adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and decreased over time in the tirzepatide groups.

There were no deaths in the study. Serious adverse events were reported by 8%-11% in the tirzepatide groups, compared with 8% in the placebo group. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6.0%, 8.4%, and 10.8% of the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, versus 2.5% in the placebo group.

Rates of hypoglycemia (less than or equal to 70 mg/dL) ranged from 14.2% to 19.3% with tirzepatide versus 12.5% with placebo. There were three episodes of severe hypoglycemia (less than 54 mg/dL), two with 10 mg tirzepatide and one with 15 mg tirzepatide.
 

Editorial raises questions

In his editorial, Dr. Chipkin writes that the study “demonstrated that use of tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in A1c and weight in a fairly homogeneous cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine with or without metformin.”

“The protocol answered questions about efficacy but left open questions about generalizability and effectiveness in different populations, especially patients with certain complications or comorbid chronic diseases.” He also notes that younger adults and Black patients were not well-represented.

And the study didn’t allow for dividing up the glargine dose or for adding short-acting insulin before meals or any other pre-meal medications and “thus may represent a departure from usual care” in the setting of rising glucose levels.

The authors themselves acknowledge that “the postprandial glucose excursions observed in the placebo group suggest an additional prandial intervention was likely needed in some patients, despite the strict inclusion criteria and the treat-to-target-approach used in the study.”

Dr. Chipkin concludes that “although patients are likely to embrace a medication with weight loss outcomes, the protocol also leaves unanswered questions about reducing insulin and evaluating the comparative risk of adverse effects.”

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dahl has reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Afimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Chipkin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding the investigational twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) to insulin glargine significantly improves blood glucose control after 40 weeks, compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes, new research shows.  

The novel once-weekly injectable agent is nicknamed a twincretin because it combines two different gut-hormone activities. It works both as a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

Findings from the randomized phase 3 SURPASS-5 clinical trial were published online Feb. 8 in JAMA.

This is the latest in a series of SURPASS trials of tirzepatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes for which results have been presented at various conferences, announced by the company, and/or published since late 2020.

SURPASS-5 specifically investigated the effect on glycemic control of adding three different doses of once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide compared with placebo in 475 adults who hadn’t achieved target A1c levels using insulin glargine with or without metformin. Statistically significant reductions in A1c were found at 40 weeks for all three doses.

Moreover, authors Dominik Dahl, MD, group practice for internal medicine and diabetology, Hamburg, Germany, and colleagues note that the improvements in the tirzepatide groups “were associated with significantly lower insulin glargine use and significant bodyweight reduction compared with placebo.”

“Despite the differences in glycemic control between the tirzepatide and placebo groups, the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was below one event per patient-year in all treatment groups,” they add.

However, concerns about the study protocol and generalizability were raised in an accompanying editorial by Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, of the School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Importantly, the study did not compare tirzepatide with other treatments that could have been used to target the postprandial glycemic pattern of the study population,” he writes.

And ultimately, he says: “Even though the results of this investigation are important for demonstrating the potential clinical benefit of [tirzepatide], and may help to advance the goal of achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, the study may leave clinicians uncertain about when and how to best use tirzepatide to improve clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Significant A1c, weight reductions when added to insulin glargine

The randomized, phase 3 SURPASS-5 trial was conducted at 45 centers in eight countries between August 2019 and January 2021. The 475 adult participants had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled (baseline A1c, 7.0%-10.5%) with once-daily insulin glargine, with or without metformin. They were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide in doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or volume-matched placebo injections over 40 weeks.

The mean changes from baseline in A1c at week 40, the primary study endpoint, were –2.11, –2.40, and –2.34 percentage points for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide, respectively (P < .001), versus a nonsignificant change of –0.86 percentage points with placebo. The differences from placebo at week 40 were also significant for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses (both P < .001).  

Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg tirzepatide met the A1c target of less than 7% at week 40, compared with placebo (85%-90% vs. 34%; P < .001). Significantly higher proportions of patients in the 10-mg and 15-mg dose groups also achieved A1c less than 5.7% (42% and 50%, respectively, vs. 3%).

Mean fasting glucose was also reduced significantly with all doses of tirzepatide by 58.2 mg/dL, 64.0 mg/dL, and 62.6 mg/dL, respectively, versus 39.2 mg/dL with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

At week 40, mean body weight reductions from baseline were 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs), 7.5 kg, and 8.8 kg versus just 1.6 kg with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

All three tirzepatide doses were also associated with significant improvements from baseline in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides.  
 

Gastrointestinal adverse events, hypoglycemia seen in minority

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups versus placebo were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea (12%-21% vs. 10%), nausea (13%-18% vs. 2.5%), vomiting (7%-13% vs. 2.5%), and decreased appetite (7%-14% vs. 1.7%). Most of these adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and decreased over time in the tirzepatide groups.

There were no deaths in the study. Serious adverse events were reported by 8%-11% in the tirzepatide groups, compared with 8% in the placebo group. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6.0%, 8.4%, and 10.8% of the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, versus 2.5% in the placebo group.

Rates of hypoglycemia (less than or equal to 70 mg/dL) ranged from 14.2% to 19.3% with tirzepatide versus 12.5% with placebo. There were three episodes of severe hypoglycemia (less than 54 mg/dL), two with 10 mg tirzepatide and one with 15 mg tirzepatide.
 

Editorial raises questions

In his editorial, Dr. Chipkin writes that the study “demonstrated that use of tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in A1c and weight in a fairly homogeneous cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine with or without metformin.”

“The protocol answered questions about efficacy but left open questions about generalizability and effectiveness in different populations, especially patients with certain complications or comorbid chronic diseases.” He also notes that younger adults and Black patients were not well-represented.

And the study didn’t allow for dividing up the glargine dose or for adding short-acting insulin before meals or any other pre-meal medications and “thus may represent a departure from usual care” in the setting of rising glucose levels.

The authors themselves acknowledge that “the postprandial glucose excursions observed in the placebo group suggest an additional prandial intervention was likely needed in some patients, despite the strict inclusion criteria and the treat-to-target-approach used in the study.”

Dr. Chipkin concludes that “although patients are likely to embrace a medication with weight loss outcomes, the protocol also leaves unanswered questions about reducing insulin and evaluating the comparative risk of adverse effects.”

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dahl has reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Afimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Chipkin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To the Editor:

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem, noncaseating, granulomatous disorder thought to occur from a combination of immunologic, genetic, and environmental factors.¹ Often referred to as the “great imitator,” the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis encompass many morphologies, including papules, plaques, nodules, and scars.¹ We report an unusual case of sarcoidosis presenting as telangiectatic macules on the lower extremities.

A woman in her early 30s presented with a burning, pruritic, erythematous, telangiectatic eruption on the lower extremities with concurrent ankle swelling of 4 weeks’ duration. The patient denied any fevers, chills, recent infections, or new medications. Evaluation by her primary care physician during the time of the eruption included unremarkable antinuclear antibodies, thyroid stimulating hormone level, complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, chest radiography, and lower-extremity Doppler ultrasonography.

Physical examination at the current presentation revealed numerous scattered, faint, erythematous, blanchable macules on the lower extremities along with mild pitting edema (Figure 1). The patient’s current medications included cetirizine, which she had been taking for years, as well as an intrauterine device. A punch biopsy from the right lower leg revealed small, well-demarcated sarcoidal granulomatous inflammation surrounding vascular structures and skin appendages (Figure 2). No foreign bodies were observed with polarized light microscopy. Microscopic findings suggestive of an infection, including caseation necrosis and suppurative inflammation, also were absent. Angiotensin-converting enzyme levels were normal. Myeloperoxidase and proteinase 3 IgG antibody levels were evaluated due to potential vascular involvement but were negative. An infectious cause of the sarcoidal granulomas was unlikely given histopathologic findings and negative tuberculosis skin testing, which the patient underwent annually for her job, so a tissue culture was not performed. The patient was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% for the itching and burning at the initial visit and was continued on this treatment after the diagnosis of sarcoidosis was made. At 2-month follow-up, the patient’s eruption had nearly resolved with topical therapy.

Cutaneous manifestation occurs in 20% to 35% of sarcoidosis cases and may develop in the presence or absence of systemic disease. Approximately 60% of individuals with cutaneous sarcoidosis are found to have systemic involvement; therefore, careful monitoring and diagnostic workup are important in the management of these patients.² While most cases of cutaneous sarcoidosis are papular, it is important for clinicians to maintain a level of suspicion for sarcoidosis in any uncertain dermatologic presentation.^1,2 Evidence of telangiectasias has been shown in rarer forms of sarcoidosis (eg, angiolupoid), but the lesions usually are confined to the face, ears, or neck.³ Granulomatous vasculitis has been reported in a small number of individuals with ulcerative sarcoidosis.⁴ In our case, no ulcerations were present, possibly indicating an early lesion or an entirely novel process. Lastly, although reticular dermal granulomas are found in drug-induced interstitial granulomatous dermatitis, these lesions often are dispersed interstitially amongst collagen bundles and are associated with necrobiosis of collagen and eosinophilic/neutrophilic infiltrates.⁵ The lack of these characteristic pathologic findings in our patient along with no known reported cases of cetirizine-induced granulomatous dermatitis led us to rule out reticular dermal granulomas as a diagnosis. We present our case as a reminder of the diversity of cutaneous sarcoidosis manifestations and the importance of early diagnosis of these lesions.

To the Editor:

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem, noncaseating, granulomatous disorder thought to occur from a combination of immunologic, genetic, and environmental factors.¹ Often referred to as the “great imitator,” the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis encompass many morphologies, including papules, plaques, nodules, and scars.¹ We report an unusual case of sarcoidosis presenting as telangiectatic macules on the lower extremities.

A woman in her early 30s presented with a burning, pruritic, erythematous, telangiectatic eruption on the lower extremities with concurrent ankle swelling of 4 weeks’ duration. The patient denied any fevers, chills, recent infections, or new medications. Evaluation by her primary care physician during the time of the eruption included unremarkable antinuclear antibodies, thyroid stimulating hormone level, complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, chest radiography, and lower-extremity Doppler ultrasonography.

Physical examination at the current presentation revealed numerous scattered, faint, erythematous, blanchable macules on the lower extremities along with mild pitting edema (Figure 1). The patient’s current medications included cetirizine, which she had been taking for years, as well as an intrauterine device. A punch biopsy from the right lower leg revealed small, well-demarcated sarcoidal granulomatous inflammation surrounding vascular structures and skin appendages (Figure 2). No foreign bodies were observed with polarized light microscopy. Microscopic findings suggestive of an infection, including caseation necrosis and suppurative inflammation, also were absent. Angiotensin-converting enzyme levels were normal. Myeloperoxidase and proteinase 3 IgG antibody levels were evaluated due to potential vascular involvement but were negative. An infectious cause of the sarcoidal granulomas was unlikely given histopathologic findings and negative tuberculosis skin testing, which the patient underwent annually for her job, so a tissue culture was not performed. The patient was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% for the itching and burning at the initial visit and was continued on this treatment after the diagnosis of sarcoidosis was made. At 2-month follow-up, the patient’s eruption had nearly resolved with topical therapy.

Cutaneous manifestation occurs in 20% to 35% of sarcoidosis cases and may develop in the presence or absence of systemic disease. Approximately 60% of individuals with cutaneous sarcoidosis are found to have systemic involvement; therefore, careful monitoring and diagnostic workup are important in the management of these patients.² While most cases of cutaneous sarcoidosis are papular, it is important for clinicians to maintain a level of suspicion for sarcoidosis in any uncertain dermatologic presentation.^1,2 Evidence of telangiectasias has been shown in rarer forms of sarcoidosis (eg, angiolupoid), but the lesions usually are confined to the face, ears, or neck.³ Granulomatous vasculitis has been reported in a small number of individuals with ulcerative sarcoidosis.⁴ In our case, no ulcerations were present, possibly indicating an early lesion or an entirely novel process. Lastly, although reticular dermal granulomas are found in drug-induced interstitial granulomatous dermatitis, these lesions often are dispersed interstitially amongst collagen bundles and are associated with necrobiosis of collagen and eosinophilic/neutrophilic infiltrates.⁵ The lack of these characteristic pathologic findings in our patient along with no known reported cases of cetirizine-induced granulomatous dermatitis led us to rule out reticular dermal granulomas as a diagnosis. We present our case as a reminder of the diversity of cutaneous sarcoidosis manifestations and the importance of early diagnosis of these lesions.

To the Editor:

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem, noncaseating, granulomatous disorder thought to occur from a combination of immunologic, genetic, and environmental factors.¹ Often referred to as the “great imitator,” the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis encompass many morphologies, including papules, plaques, nodules, and scars.¹ We report an unusual case of sarcoidosis presenting as telangiectatic macules on the lower extremities.

A woman in her early 30s presented with a burning, pruritic, erythematous, telangiectatic eruption on the lower extremities with concurrent ankle swelling of 4 weeks’ duration. The patient denied any fevers, chills, recent infections, or new medications. Evaluation by her primary care physician during the time of the eruption included unremarkable antinuclear antibodies, thyroid stimulating hormone level, complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, chest radiography, and lower-extremity Doppler ultrasonography.

Physical examination at the current presentation revealed numerous scattered, faint, erythematous, blanchable macules on the lower extremities along with mild pitting edema (Figure 1). The patient’s current medications included cetirizine, which she had been taking for years, as well as an intrauterine device. A punch biopsy from the right lower leg revealed small, well-demarcated sarcoidal granulomatous inflammation surrounding vascular structures and skin appendages (Figure 2). No foreign bodies were observed with polarized light microscopy. Microscopic findings suggestive of an infection, including caseation necrosis and suppurative inflammation, also were absent. Angiotensin-converting enzyme levels were normal. Myeloperoxidase and proteinase 3 IgG antibody levels were evaluated due to potential vascular involvement but were negative. An infectious cause of the sarcoidal granulomas was unlikely given histopathologic findings and negative tuberculosis skin testing, which the patient underwent annually for her job, so a tissue culture was not performed. The patient was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% for the itching and burning at the initial visit and was continued on this treatment after the diagnosis of sarcoidosis was made. At 2-month follow-up, the patient’s eruption had nearly resolved with topical therapy.

Cutaneous manifestation occurs in 20% to 35% of sarcoidosis cases and may develop in the presence or absence of systemic disease. Approximately 60% of individuals with cutaneous sarcoidosis are found to have systemic involvement; therefore, careful monitoring and diagnostic workup are important in the management of these patients.² While most cases of cutaneous sarcoidosis are papular, it is important for clinicians to maintain a level of suspicion for sarcoidosis in any uncertain dermatologic presentation.^1,2 Evidence of telangiectasias has been shown in rarer forms of sarcoidosis (eg, angiolupoid), but the lesions usually are confined to the face, ears, or neck.³ Granulomatous vasculitis has been reported in a small number of individuals with ulcerative sarcoidosis.⁴ In our case, no ulcerations were present, possibly indicating an early lesion or an entirely novel process. Lastly, although reticular dermal granulomas are found in drug-induced interstitial granulomatous dermatitis, these lesions often are dispersed interstitially amongst collagen bundles and are associated with necrobiosis of collagen and eosinophilic/neutrophilic infiltrates.⁵ The lack of these characteristic pathologic findings in our patient along with no known reported cases of cetirizine-induced granulomatous dermatitis led us to rule out reticular dermal granulomas as a diagnosis. We present our case as a reminder of the diversity of cutaneous sarcoidosis manifestations and the importance of early diagnosis of these lesions.

To the Editor:

Acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) remains a limitation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in 20% to 50% of patients after transplant. Furthermore, failed treatment with corticosteroids is frequent and portends a poor prognosis.¹ Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is an epidermolytic skin disorder thought to represent an adverse drug reaction, though its pathogenesis remains unclear. Severe forms of acute GVHD can mimic TEN clinically and histologically. Both can present with widespread cutaneous and mucosal bullae, erosions, and desquamation. Toxic epidermal necrolysis in the context of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is extremely rare, with almost 100% mortality in adult patients. Features that favor acute GVHD over TEN include diarrhea, elevation in bilirubin level, and chimerism.² However, these features might be absent, posing a therapeutic dilemma, as current treatment preferences for each of these entities differ.

Growing evidence supports the use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α drugs for the treatment of TEN. Success has been reported with both anti–TNF-α monoclonal antibodies as well as the soluble fusion protein etanercept.^3,4 The use of TNF-α inhibitors in acute GVHD remains anecdotal.

A 58-year-old man (patient 1) with a history of acute myelogenous leukemia presented with a pruritic morbilliform eruption 28 days after HSCT. There was no desquamation or mucosal involvement and the biopsy obtained was histologically suggestive of grade 2 acute GVHD. His immunosuppressive regimen included sirolimus and cyclophosphamide. He was receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), voriconazole, and acyclovir for infectious prophylaxis. At the time of presentation, he was treated with high-dose systemic steroids (prednisone 2 mg/kg/d) for acute GVHD with partial improvement. Upon tapering of the steroids 3 weeks after initiating TMP-SMX and 1 week after initiating voriconazole, he developed painful desquamation and erosions involving 95% of the body surface area (BSA), necessitating admission to the local burn unit (Figure 1). Biopsies demonstrated full-thickness epidermal necrosis with subepidermal blistering and interface dermatitis (Figure 2). No gastrointestinal tract involvement of acute GVHD was noted. The patient was a 100% donor chimera, supporting the diagnosis of acute GVHD; however, the patient and donor carried the HLA-C*06:02 allele, which previously has been described in association with TMP-SMX–related Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN.⁵ In addition, causality assessment using the algorithm of drug causality for epidermal necrolysis indicated TMP-SMX as a probable cause and voriconazole as a possible cause. The diagnosis of TEN with a SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 4 in the setting of acute GVHD was favored, though grade 4 acute GVHD could not be excluded. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was discontinued, and voriconazole was changed to posaconazole. He received supportive care along with 1 dose of 25-mg subcutaneous etanercept and 3 days of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Skin re-epithelialization was complete by 3 weeks. At 4 weeks, the patient developed a new asymptomatic erythematous eruption. Biopsies demonstrated changes of acute and chronic GVHD (Figure 3) that resolved with up-titration of sirolimus. The patient remained hospitalized for 96 days and continued to follow up with his transplant team as well as ophthalmology and dermatology. He died 2 years after HSCT.

A 67-year-old woman (patient 2) with high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome presented with an erythematous morbilliform eruption on the torso on day 20 after a matched unrelated HSCT that histologically was consistent with grade 2 GVHD (Figure 4). She had been receiving sirolimus and tacrolimus for GVHD prophylaxis. Infectious prophylaxis included acyclovir, pentamidine, micafungin, and TMP-SMX. Despite high-dose systemic steroids, the rash progressed and ultimately involved 80% BSA. A positive Nikolsky sign was noted involving 21% BSA (Figure 5), in addition to oral and genital mucosal ulcers. She denied nausea, vomiting, fever, or diarrhea. Chimerism studies were negative. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was discontinued, and she was transferred to a burn unit. Biopsies showed full-thickness epidermal necrosis. A diagnosis of TEN with a SCORTEN of 4 in the setting of acute GVHD was favored; grade 4 acute GVHD could not be excluded. Steroids were discontinued. Because laboratory studies indicated IgA deficiency, IVIG was not considered as a systemic option for therapy. The patient received 1 dose of infliximab (5 mg/kg). Cyclophosphamide 1600 mg weekly was added for GVHD therapy. The wounds progressively healed, and 2 weeks into her admission she was noted to have only 3% BSA with denuded skin. The patient was transferred to the cancer treatment center for further management of the malignancy. Unfortunately, after 2 months she died due to ischemic colitis that was confirmed on autopsy.

Graft-vs-host disease and TEN are rare, life-threatening complications seen in patients with allogeneic HSCT.² Graft-vs-host disease and TEN share clinicopathologic characteristics and effector immune mechanisms, largely the substantial role of T-cell activation and tissue destruction, which occur through mediators such as TNF-α.^6-8

Given the sparse lymphocytic infiltrate, keratinocyte death in TEN is thought to result from soluble molecules, including TNF-α and TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand.⁹ Tumor necrosis factor α has been identified in blister fluid, biopsy specimens, and serum of patients with TEN. Tumor necrosis factor α increases the expression of keratinocyte-inducible nitric oxide synthase, which upregulates keratinocyte Fas ligand expression and subsequent Fas- and caspase-8–mediated keratinocyte cell death.¹⁰

Acute GVHD results from donor lymphocyte activation after infusion into damaged recipient tissues that previously have been radiated or chemoablated. Mismatches in histocompatibility complexes between donor cells and recipient tissue antigens serve as the initial trigger for immune activation. Activation of antigen-presenting cells followed by activation, proliferation, differentiation, and migration of donor T cells ultimately results in destruction of the target tissue.¹¹ Immune mediators, such as TNF-α and lymphotoxin α (another member of the TNF superfamily), play a nonredundant role in the pathogenesis of GVHD.¹²

Current treatment strategies for severe acute GVHD and TEN differ. In North America, high-dose IVIG frequently is used as first-line systemic therapy, while high-dose systemic corticosteroids rarely are used.¹³ Studies have demonstrated successful use of anti–TNF-α drugs for the treatment of TEN.^3,4 Moreover, etanercept has shown to effectively inhibit lymphotoxin α.¹⁴ Similarly, TNF inhibition in the management of steroid-refractory acute GVHD has been successful.¹ These studies coupled with the underlying immune mechanisms that both diseases share encouraged initiating a trial of anti–TNF-α therapy in our patients.

Patient 1 merits further discussion because he was both a 100% donor chimera as well as a carrier of an human leukocyte antigen susceptibility candidate allele to TMP-SMX. Historical features of his presentation are consistent with either steroid-refractory GVHD or TEN superimposed on acute GVHD. His initial presentation of the more typical macular exanthem of cutaneous acute GVHD was both biopsy proven and supported by clinical improvement with steroid therapy, which was later followed by a robust blistering mucocutaneous presentation approximately 3 weeks after the administration of TMP-SMX and 1 week after initiating voriconazole that improved with IVIG and etanercept.

It is difficult to determine if TEN represents a continuum or result of the underlying drivers of acute GVHD vs a drug reaction. Although there is insufficient evidence to establish a clear-cut diagnosis of TEN, these cases illustrate the need for better diagnostic techniques to allow differentiation between TEN and grade 4 acute GVHD, and in the context of uncertainty, TNF-α inhibition poses a viable therapeutic strategy for these 2 often lethal conditions. Our cases do unequivocally indicate the benefit of this therapeutic modality, add to the current body of literature supporting the use of TNF-α inhibitors in patients such as ours without an official TEN diagnosis, and may guide future investigative efforts.

To the Editor:

Acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) remains a limitation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in 20% to 50% of patients after transplant. Furthermore, failed treatment with corticosteroids is frequent and portends a poor prognosis.¹ Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is an epidermolytic skin disorder thought to represent an adverse drug reaction, though its pathogenesis remains unclear. Severe forms of acute GVHD can mimic TEN clinically and histologically. Both can present with widespread cutaneous and mucosal bullae, erosions, and desquamation. Toxic epidermal necrolysis in the context of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is extremely rare, with almost 100% mortality in adult patients. Features that favor acute GVHD over TEN include diarrhea, elevation in bilirubin level, and chimerism.² However, these features might be absent, posing a therapeutic dilemma, as current treatment preferences for each of these entities differ.

Growing evidence supports the use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α drugs for the treatment of TEN. Success has been reported with both anti–TNF-α monoclonal antibodies as well as the soluble fusion protein etanercept.^3,4 The use of TNF-α inhibitors in acute GVHD remains anecdotal.

A 58-year-old man (patient 1) with a history of acute myelogenous leukemia presented with a pruritic morbilliform eruption 28 days after HSCT. There was no desquamation or mucosal involvement and the biopsy obtained was histologically suggestive of grade 2 acute GVHD. His immunosuppressive regimen included sirolimus and cyclophosphamide. He was receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), voriconazole, and acyclovir for infectious prophylaxis. At the time of presentation, he was treated with high-dose systemic steroids (prednisone 2 mg/kg/d) for acute GVHD with partial improvement. Upon tapering of the steroids 3 weeks after initiating TMP-SMX and 1 week after initiating voriconazole, he developed painful desquamation and erosions involving 95% of the body surface area (BSA), necessitating admission to the local burn unit (Figure 1). Biopsies demonstrated full-thickness epidermal necrosis with subepidermal blistering and interface dermatitis (Figure 2). No gastrointestinal tract involvement of acute GVHD was noted. The patient was a 100% donor chimera, supporting the diagnosis of acute GVHD; however, the patient and donor carried the HLA-C*06:02 allele, which previously has been described in association with TMP-SMX–related Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN.⁵ In addition, causality assessment using the algorithm of drug causality for epidermal necrolysis indicated TMP-SMX as a probable cause and voriconazole as a possible cause. The diagnosis of TEN with a SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 4 in the setting of acute GVHD was favored, though grade 4 acute GVHD could not be excluded. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was discontinued, and voriconazole was changed to posaconazole. He received supportive care along with 1 dose of 25-mg subcutaneous etanercept and 3 days of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Skin re-epithelialization was complete by 3 weeks. At 4 weeks, the patient developed a new asymptomatic erythematous eruption. Biopsies demonstrated changes of acute and chronic GVHD (Figure 3) that resolved with up-titration of sirolimus. The patient remained hospitalized for 96 days and continued to follow up with his transplant team as well as ophthalmology and dermatology. He died 2 years after HSCT.

A 67-year-old woman (patient 2) with high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome presented with an erythematous morbilliform eruption on the torso on day 20 after a matched unrelated HSCT that histologically was consistent with grade 2 GVHD (Figure 4). She had been receiving sirolimus and tacrolimus for GVHD prophylaxis. Infectious prophylaxis included acyclovir, pentamidine, micafungin, and TMP-SMX. Despite high-dose systemic steroids, the rash progressed and ultimately involved 80% BSA. A positive Nikolsky sign was noted involving 21% BSA (Figure 5), in addition to oral and genital mucosal ulcers. She denied nausea, vomiting, fever, or diarrhea. Chimerism studies were negative. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was discontinued, and she was transferred to a burn unit. Biopsies showed full-thickness epidermal necrosis. A diagnosis of TEN with a SCORTEN of 4 in the setting of acute GVHD was favored; grade 4 acute GVHD could not be excluded. Steroids were discontinued. Because laboratory studies indicated IgA deficiency, IVIG was not considered as a systemic option for therapy. The patient received 1 dose of infliximab (5 mg/kg). Cyclophosphamide 1600 mg weekly was added for GVHD therapy. The wounds progressively healed, and 2 weeks into her admission she was noted to have only 3% BSA with denuded skin. The patient was transferred to the cancer treatment center for further management of the malignancy. Unfortunately, after 2 months she died due to ischemic colitis that was confirmed on autopsy.

Graft-vs-host disease and TEN are rare, life-threatening complications seen in patients with allogeneic HSCT.² Graft-vs-host disease and TEN share clinicopathologic characteristics and effector immune mechanisms, largely the substantial role of T-cell activation and tissue destruction, which occur through mediators such as TNF-α.^6-8

Given the sparse lymphocytic infiltrate, keratinocyte death in TEN is thought to result from soluble molecules, including TNF-α and TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand.⁹ Tumor necrosis factor α has been identified in blister fluid, biopsy specimens, and serum of patients with TEN. Tumor necrosis factor α increases the expression of keratinocyte-inducible nitric oxide synthase, which upregulates keratinocyte Fas ligand expression and subsequent Fas- and caspase-8–mediated keratinocyte cell death.¹⁰

Acute GVHD results from donor lymphocyte activation after infusion into damaged recipient tissues that previously have been radiated or chemoablated. Mismatches in histocompatibility complexes between donor cells and recipient tissue antigens serve as the initial trigger for immune activation. Activation of antigen-presenting cells followed by activation, proliferation, differentiation, and migration of donor T cells ultimately results in destruction of the target tissue.¹¹ Immune mediators, such as TNF-α and lymphotoxin α (another member of the TNF superfamily), play a nonredundant role in the pathogenesis of GVHD.¹²

Current treatment strategies for severe acute GVHD and TEN differ. In North America, high-dose IVIG frequently is used as first-line systemic therapy, while high-dose systemic corticosteroids rarely are used.¹³ Studies have demonstrated successful use of anti–TNF-α drugs for the treatment of TEN.^3,4 Moreover, etanercept has shown to effectively inhibit lymphotoxin α.¹⁴ Similarly, TNF inhibition in the management of steroid-refractory acute GVHD has been successful.¹ These studies coupled with the underlying immune mechanisms that both diseases share encouraged initiating a trial of anti–TNF-α therapy in our patients.

Patient 1 merits further discussion because he was both a 100% donor chimera as well as a carrier of an human leukocyte antigen susceptibility candidate allele to TMP-SMX. Historical features of his presentation are consistent with either steroid-refractory GVHD or TEN superimposed on acute GVHD. His initial presentation of the more typical macular exanthem of cutaneous acute GVHD was both biopsy proven and supported by clinical improvement with steroid therapy, which was later followed by a robust blistering mucocutaneous presentation approximately 3 weeks after the administration of TMP-SMX and 1 week after initiating voriconazole that improved with IVIG and etanercept.

It is difficult to determine if TEN represents a continuum or result of the underlying drivers of acute GVHD vs a drug reaction. Although there is insufficient evidence to establish a clear-cut diagnosis of TEN, these cases illustrate the need for better diagnostic techniques to allow differentiation between TEN and grade 4 acute GVHD, and in the context of uncertainty, TNF-α inhibition poses a viable therapeutic strategy for these 2 often lethal conditions. Our cases do unequivocally indicate the benefit of this therapeutic modality, add to the current body of literature supporting the use of TNF-α inhibitors in patients such as ours without an official TEN diagnosis, and may guide future investigative efforts.

To the Editor:

Acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) remains a limitation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in 20% to 50% of patients after transplant. Furthermore, failed treatment with corticosteroids is frequent and portends a poor prognosis.¹ Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is an epidermolytic skin disorder thought to represent an adverse drug reaction, though its pathogenesis remains unclear. Severe forms of acute GVHD can mimic TEN clinically and histologically. Both can present with widespread cutaneous and mucosal bullae, erosions, and desquamation. Toxic epidermal necrolysis in the context of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is extremely rare, with almost 100% mortality in adult patients. Features that favor acute GVHD over TEN include diarrhea, elevation in bilirubin level, and chimerism.² However, these features might be absent, posing a therapeutic dilemma, as current treatment preferences for each of these entities differ.

Growing evidence supports the use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α drugs for the treatment of TEN. Success has been reported with both anti–TNF-α monoclonal antibodies as well as the soluble fusion protein etanercept.^3,4 The use of TNF-α inhibitors in acute GVHD remains anecdotal.

A 58-year-old man (patient 1) with a history of acute myelogenous leukemia presented with a pruritic morbilliform eruption 28 days after HSCT. There was no desquamation or mucosal involvement and the biopsy obtained was histologically suggestive of grade 2 acute GVHD. His immunosuppressive regimen included sirolimus and cyclophosphamide. He was receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), voriconazole, and acyclovir for infectious prophylaxis. At the time of presentation, he was treated with high-dose systemic steroids (prednisone 2 mg/kg/d) for acute GVHD with partial improvement. Upon tapering of the steroids 3 weeks after initiating TMP-SMX and 1 week after initiating voriconazole, he developed painful desquamation and erosions involving 95% of the body surface area (BSA), necessitating admission to the local burn unit (Figure 1). Biopsies demonstrated full-thickness epidermal necrosis with subepidermal blistering and interface dermatitis (Figure 2). No gastrointestinal tract involvement of acute GVHD was noted. The patient was a 100% donor chimera, supporting the diagnosis of acute GVHD; however, the patient and donor carried the HLA-C*06:02 allele, which previously has been described in association with TMP-SMX–related Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN.⁵ In addition, causality assessment using the algorithm of drug causality for epidermal necrolysis indicated TMP-SMX as a probable cause and voriconazole as a possible cause. The diagnosis of TEN with a SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 4 in the setting of acute GVHD was favored, though grade 4 acute GVHD could not be excluded. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was discontinued, and voriconazole was changed to posaconazole. He received supportive care along with 1 dose of 25-mg subcutaneous etanercept and 3 days of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Skin re-epithelialization was complete by 3 weeks. At 4 weeks, the patient developed a new asymptomatic erythematous eruption. Biopsies demonstrated changes of acute and chronic GVHD (Figure 3) that resolved with up-titration of sirolimus. The patient remained hospitalized for 96 days and continued to follow up with his transplant team as well as ophthalmology and dermatology. He died 2 years after HSCT.

A 67-year-old woman (patient 2) with high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome presented with an erythematous morbilliform eruption on the torso on day 20 after a matched unrelated HSCT that histologically was consistent with grade 2 GVHD (Figure 4). She had been receiving sirolimus and tacrolimus for GVHD prophylaxis. Infectious prophylaxis included acyclovir, pentamidine, micafungin, and TMP-SMX. Despite high-dose systemic steroids, the rash progressed and ultimately involved 80% BSA. A positive Nikolsky sign was noted involving 21% BSA (Figure 5), in addition to oral and genital mucosal ulcers. She denied nausea, vomiting, fever, or diarrhea. Chimerism studies were negative. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was discontinued, and she was transferred to a burn unit. Biopsies showed full-thickness epidermal necrosis. A diagnosis of TEN with a SCORTEN of 4 in the setting of acute GVHD was favored; grade 4 acute GVHD could not be excluded. Steroids were discontinued. Because laboratory studies indicated IgA deficiency, IVIG was not considered as a systemic option for therapy. The patient received 1 dose of infliximab (5 mg/kg). Cyclophosphamide 1600 mg weekly was added for GVHD therapy. The wounds progressively healed, and 2 weeks into her admission she was noted to have only 3% BSA with denuded skin. The patient was transferred to the cancer treatment center for further management of the malignancy. Unfortunately, after 2 months she died due to ischemic colitis that was confirmed on autopsy.

Graft-vs-host disease and TEN are rare, life-threatening complications seen in patients with allogeneic HSCT.² Graft-vs-host disease and TEN share clinicopathologic characteristics and effector immune mechanisms, largely the substantial role of T-cell activation and tissue destruction, which occur through mediators such as TNF-α.^6-8

Given the sparse lymphocytic infiltrate, keratinocyte death in TEN is thought to result from soluble molecules, including TNF-α and TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand.⁹ Tumor necrosis factor α has been identified in blister fluid, biopsy specimens, and serum of patients with TEN. Tumor necrosis factor α increases the expression of keratinocyte-inducible nitric oxide synthase, which upregulates keratinocyte Fas ligand expression and subsequent Fas- and caspase-8–mediated keratinocyte cell death.¹⁰

Acute GVHD results from donor lymphocyte activation after infusion into damaged recipient tissues that previously have been radiated or chemoablated. Mismatches in histocompatibility complexes between donor cells and recipient tissue antigens serve as the initial trigger for immune activation. Activation of antigen-presenting cells followed by activation, proliferation, differentiation, and migration of donor T cells ultimately results in destruction of the target tissue.¹¹ Immune mediators, such as TNF-α and lymphotoxin α (another member of the TNF superfamily), play a nonredundant role in the pathogenesis of GVHD.¹²

Current treatment strategies for severe acute GVHD and TEN differ. In North America, high-dose IVIG frequently is used as first-line systemic therapy, while high-dose systemic corticosteroids rarely are used.¹³ Studies have demonstrated successful use of anti–TNF-α drugs for the treatment of TEN.^3,4 Moreover, etanercept has shown to effectively inhibit lymphotoxin α.¹⁴ Similarly, TNF inhibition in the management of steroid-refractory acute GVHD has been successful.¹ These studies coupled with the underlying immune mechanisms that both diseases share encouraged initiating a trial of anti–TNF-α therapy in our patients.

Patient 1 merits further discussion because he was both a 100% donor chimera as well as a carrier of an human leukocyte antigen susceptibility candidate allele to TMP-SMX. Historical features of his presentation are consistent with either steroid-refractory GVHD or TEN superimposed on acute GVHD. His initial presentation of the more typical macular exanthem of cutaneous acute GVHD was both biopsy proven and supported by clinical improvement with steroid therapy, which was later followed by a robust blistering mucocutaneous presentation approximately 3 weeks after the administration of TMP-SMX and 1 week after initiating voriconazole that improved with IVIG and etanercept.

It is difficult to determine if TEN represents a continuum or result of the underlying drivers of acute GVHD vs a drug reaction. Although there is insufficient evidence to establish a clear-cut diagnosis of TEN, these cases illustrate the need for better diagnostic techniques to allow differentiation between TEN and grade 4 acute GVHD, and in the context of uncertainty, TNF-α inhibition poses a viable therapeutic strategy for these 2 often lethal conditions. Our cases do unequivocally indicate the benefit of this therapeutic modality, add to the current body of literature supporting the use of TNF-α inhibitors in patients such as ours without an official TEN diagnosis, and may guide future investigative efforts.

To the Editor:

A 71-year-old Hispanic man with a history of vitiligo presented with an acute-onset blistering rash on the face, arms, and hands. Physical examination demonstrated photodistributed erythematous plaques with overlying vesicles and erosions with hemorrhagic crust on the face, neck, dorsal aspects of the hands, and wrists (Figure). Further history revealed that the patient applied a new cream that was recommended to treat vitiligo the night before the rash onset; he obtained the cream from a Central American market without a prescription. He had gone running in the park without any form of sun protection and then developed the rash within several hours. He denied taking any other medications or supplements. The involvement of sun-protected areas (ie, upper eyelids, nasolabial folds, submental area) was explained when the patient further elaborated that he had performed supine exercises during his outdoor recreation. He brought his new cream into the clinic, which was found to contain prescription-strength methoxsalen (8-methoxypsoralen), confirming the diagnosis of acute phototoxic contact dermatitis. The acute reaction had subsided, and the patient already had discontinued the causative agent. He was counseled on further avoidance of the cream and sun-protective measures.

The photosensitizing properties of certain compounds have been harnessed for therapeutic purposes. For example, psoralen plus UVA therapy has been used for psoriasis and vitiligo and photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses and superficial nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹ However, these agents can induce severe phototoxicity if UV light exposure is not carefully monitored, as seen in our patient. This case is a classic example of phototoxic contact dermatitis and highlights the importance of obtaining a detailed patient history to allow for proper diagnosis and identification of the causative agent. Importantly, because prescription-strength topical medications are readily available over-the-counter, particularly in stores specializing in international goods, patients should be questioned about the use of all topical and systemic medications, both prescription and nonprescription.²

To the Editor:

A 71-year-old Hispanic man with a history of vitiligo presented with an acute-onset blistering rash on the face, arms, and hands. Physical examination demonstrated photodistributed erythematous plaques with overlying vesicles and erosions with hemorrhagic crust on the face, neck, dorsal aspects of the hands, and wrists (Figure). Further history revealed that the patient applied a new cream that was recommended to treat vitiligo the night before the rash onset; he obtained the cream from a Central American market without a prescription. He had gone running in the park without any form of sun protection and then developed the rash within several hours. He denied taking any other medications or supplements. The involvement of sun-protected areas (ie, upper eyelids, nasolabial folds, submental area) was explained when the patient further elaborated that he had performed supine exercises during his outdoor recreation. He brought his new cream into the clinic, which was found to contain prescription-strength methoxsalen (8-methoxypsoralen), confirming the diagnosis of acute phototoxic contact dermatitis. The acute reaction had subsided, and the patient already had discontinued the causative agent. He was counseled on further avoidance of the cream and sun-protective measures.

The photosensitizing properties of certain compounds have been harnessed for therapeutic purposes. For example, psoralen plus UVA therapy has been used for psoriasis and vitiligo and photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses and superficial nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹ However, these agents can induce severe phototoxicity if UV light exposure is not carefully monitored, as seen in our patient. This case is a classic example of phototoxic contact dermatitis and highlights the importance of obtaining a detailed patient history to allow for proper diagnosis and identification of the causative agent. Importantly, because prescription-strength topical medications are readily available over-the-counter, particularly in stores specializing in international goods, patients should be questioned about the use of all topical and systemic medications, both prescription and nonprescription.²

To the Editor:

A 71-year-old Hispanic man with a history of vitiligo presented with an acute-onset blistering rash on the face, arms, and hands. Physical examination demonstrated photodistributed erythematous plaques with overlying vesicles and erosions with hemorrhagic crust on the face, neck, dorsal aspects of the hands, and wrists (Figure). Further history revealed that the patient applied a new cream that was recommended to treat vitiligo the night before the rash onset; he obtained the cream from a Central American market without a prescription. He had gone running in the park without any form of sun protection and then developed the rash within several hours. He denied taking any other medications or supplements. The involvement of sun-protected areas (ie, upper eyelids, nasolabial folds, submental area) was explained when the patient further elaborated that he had performed supine exercises during his outdoor recreation. He brought his new cream into the clinic, which was found to contain prescription-strength methoxsalen (8-methoxypsoralen), confirming the diagnosis of acute phototoxic contact dermatitis. The acute reaction had subsided, and the patient already had discontinued the causative agent. He was counseled on further avoidance of the cream and sun-protective measures.

The photosensitizing properties of certain compounds have been harnessed for therapeutic purposes. For example, psoralen plus UVA therapy has been used for psoriasis and vitiligo and photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses and superficial nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹ However, these agents can induce severe phototoxicity if UV light exposure is not carefully monitored, as seen in our patient. This case is a classic example of phototoxic contact dermatitis and highlights the importance of obtaining a detailed patient history to allow for proper diagnosis and identification of the causative agent. Importantly, because prescription-strength topical medications are readily available over-the-counter, particularly in stores specializing in international goods, patients should be questioned about the use of all topical and systemic medications, both prescription and nonprescription.²