A novel randomized trial taking on a vexing issue around one of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications has concluded that frequently intolerable statin side effects, such as muscle weakness or pain, are almost entirely a nocebo effect, the placebo effect’s darker cousin.

The many patients who report such symptoms while taking statins are indeed probably feeling them, but they are a result of taking the pills rather than any pharmacologic effects, concluded researchers based on their 60-patient study, Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects or Nocebo (SAMSON).

“SAMSON leaves no doubt that patients really do get side effects from statin tablets, but what it shows us is that 90% of this symptomatic burden is elicited by placebo tablets too,” said James P. Howard, MB, PhD, Imperial College London, when presenting the results Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. They were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Studies have shown that in practice “more than half of patients abandon statins completely within 2 years. And yet, in placebo-controlled trials, no more people stop statins than placebo,” Dr. Howard said.

“The most important message from SAMSON is that side effects from statin tablets are very real, but they are mainly caused by the act of taking the tablets, not by the statin that is contained within them.”
Patients in the trial, all of whom had a history of dropping statins because of side effects, each took atorvastatin 20 mg/day, a placebo, or neither pill for 1 month, alternating the regimens in randomized order over 1 year so that each was followed a total of 4 months. They used a smartphone app to record the severity of any side effects, not necessarily just pain, on a scale of 0-100.

Symptom intensity scores averaged 16.3 for atorvastatin and 15.4 for placebo, for a nonsignificant difference, but only 8.0 for no-pill months (P < .001 compared with the statin or placebo).
Because such symptoms seem to be based on patient expectations from statin therapy, positive communication about what the drugs can achieve and how the next treatment steps are described can play a big role in their continued use.

For example, “changing them to another statin is a very reasonable thing to do, but as soon as you start trying people on lower doses and working up, you’re sort of telling them that you’re expecting at some dose that they are going to get side effects,” cautioned Dr. Howard at a media briefing on SAMSON.

“The most important thing is to explain the evidence, and what our expectations are, maybe be a bit more optimistic about statins, and tell them they’re very unlikely to suffer from side effects,” he explained, “because the nocebo effect can only really rear its head if the patients are expecting to feel worse – just like the placebo effect will only work if people are expecting to feel better.”
Amit Khera, MD, who moderated the media briefing, said he always tells such patients: “Yes, 1 in 10 patients report having muscle ache. But first and foremost, 9 in 10 don’t. The vast majority of patients don’t get muscle aches. I think that’s really an important part of the communication.”

Now, after SAMSON, “I have an additional point that I’m going to tell them: out of the patients that get muscle aches, probably 90% of that is the anticipation of getting the statin, the nocebo effect,” said Dr. Khera, who directs the preventive cardiology program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In practice, however, many patients who report adverse statin effects do so later than 2 weeks after starting therapy, “so these findings cannot be generalized to them,” proposed Francine K. Welty, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, as the invited discussant after Dr. Howard’s presentation.

All 60 patients recruited for SAMSON had previously stopped taking a statin because of side effects that arose within 2 weeks of their first dose. That requirement was intended to boost chances that any further symptoms during the trial would arise within a month of starting each new round of pills, Dr. Howard said.

So the trial’s results, Dr. Welty said, “are limited to those subjects who develop symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin.”

Including only such patients may have created bias toward a nocebo effect, she said, because “non–drug-related side effects of medications are often greatest during the initial weeks of treatment and tend to abate over time.” For example, “metformin causes diarrhea and beta-blockers cause fatigue, but subjects do adapt and generally tolerate them very well.”

The patients, 25 women and 35 men, 90% of whom were white, received four pill bottles, each with a month’s supply of atorvastatin, four bottles each with 1 month of placebo, and four empty bottles each, to be used double blind for a month in randomized order.

Patients used the smartphone app to document their symptom scores, which ranged from 0 for no symptoms to 100 for symptoms that were the “worst imaginable,” the published report noted. Patients who experienced symptoms so severe as to be intolerable could stop the 1-month regimen they were then following, with instructions to resume the regimens in order starting the next month.

Eleven patients were unable to complete all 12 1-month segments of the trial.

The study’s overall “nocebo ratio” of 0.90 was calculated as the difference between symptom intensity scores on placebo and on no treatment divided by the difference between symptom intensity on the statin and on no treatment. The interpretation: 90% of the symptom burden felt by patients receiving atorvastatin was also felt during placebo use.

A total of 30 patients, contacted 6 months after the trial concluded, had resumed taking a statin, while “4 planned to do so and one could not be contacted,” the report noted. The 25 other patients weren’t receiving a statin and had no plans to take one.

In an important part of the trial, Dr. Howard said, at its conclusion the patients were shown their pattern of symptoms in relation to whether they were taking the statin, placebo, or neither. “Participants could see as clearly as we could the surprisingly powerful magnitude of the nocebo effect. And this led to half of our patients happily restarting statins.”

The implications of SAMSON, Dr. Welty said, “are very important, in that those developing symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin should be reassured that approximately half will be able to successful restart the statin.”

SAMSON was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Howard had no disclosures. Dr. Welty disclosed chairing the data safety monitoring committee for Empagliflozin International Clinical Trials, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A novel randomized trial taking on a vexing issue around one of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications has concluded that frequently intolerable statin side effects, such as muscle weakness or pain, are almost entirely a nocebo effect, the placebo effect’s darker cousin.

The many patients who report such symptoms while taking statins are indeed probably feeling them, but they are a result of taking the pills rather than any pharmacologic effects, concluded researchers based on their 60-patient study, Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects or Nocebo (SAMSON).

“SAMSON leaves no doubt that patients really do get side effects from statin tablets, but what it shows us is that 90% of this symptomatic burden is elicited by placebo tablets too,” said James P. Howard, MB, PhD, Imperial College London, when presenting the results Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. They were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Studies have shown that in practice “more than half of patients abandon statins completely within 2 years. And yet, in placebo-controlled trials, no more people stop statins than placebo,” Dr. Howard said.

“The most important message from SAMSON is that side effects from statin tablets are very real, but they are mainly caused by the act of taking the tablets, not by the statin that is contained within them.”
Patients in the trial, all of whom had a history of dropping statins because of side effects, each took atorvastatin 20 mg/day, a placebo, or neither pill for 1 month, alternating the regimens in randomized order over 1 year so that each was followed a total of 4 months. They used a smartphone app to record the severity of any side effects, not necessarily just pain, on a scale of 0-100.

Symptom intensity scores averaged 16.3 for atorvastatin and 15.4 for placebo, for a nonsignificant difference, but only 8.0 for no-pill months (P < .001 compared with the statin or placebo).
Because such symptoms seem to be based on patient expectations from statin therapy, positive communication about what the drugs can achieve and how the next treatment steps are described can play a big role in their continued use.

For example, “changing them to another statin is a very reasonable thing to do, but as soon as you start trying people on lower doses and working up, you’re sort of telling them that you’re expecting at some dose that they are going to get side effects,” cautioned Dr. Howard at a media briefing on SAMSON.

“The most important thing is to explain the evidence, and what our expectations are, maybe be a bit more optimistic about statins, and tell them they’re very unlikely to suffer from side effects,” he explained, “because the nocebo effect can only really rear its head if the patients are expecting to feel worse – just like the placebo effect will only work if people are expecting to feel better.”
Amit Khera, MD, who moderated the media briefing, said he always tells such patients: “Yes, 1 in 10 patients report having muscle ache. But first and foremost, 9 in 10 don’t. The vast majority of patients don’t get muscle aches. I think that’s really an important part of the communication.”

Now, after SAMSON, “I have an additional point that I’m going to tell them: out of the patients that get muscle aches, probably 90% of that is the anticipation of getting the statin, the nocebo effect,” said Dr. Khera, who directs the preventive cardiology program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In practice, however, many patients who report adverse statin effects do so later than 2 weeks after starting therapy, “so these findings cannot be generalized to them,” proposed Francine K. Welty, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, as the invited discussant after Dr. Howard’s presentation.

All 60 patients recruited for SAMSON had previously stopped taking a statin because of side effects that arose within 2 weeks of their first dose. That requirement was intended to boost chances that any further symptoms during the trial would arise within a month of starting each new round of pills, Dr. Howard said.

So the trial’s results, Dr. Welty said, “are limited to those subjects who develop symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin.”

Including only such patients may have created bias toward a nocebo effect, she said, because “non–drug-related side effects of medications are often greatest during the initial weeks of treatment and tend to abate over time.” For example, “metformin causes diarrhea and beta-blockers cause fatigue, but subjects do adapt and generally tolerate them very well.”

The patients, 25 women and 35 men, 90% of whom were white, received four pill bottles, each with a month’s supply of atorvastatin, four bottles each with 1 month of placebo, and four empty bottles each, to be used double blind for a month in randomized order.

Patients used the smartphone app to document their symptom scores, which ranged from 0 for no symptoms to 100 for symptoms that were the “worst imaginable,” the published report noted. Patients who experienced symptoms so severe as to be intolerable could stop the 1-month regimen they were then following, with instructions to resume the regimens in order starting the next month.

Eleven patients were unable to complete all 12 1-month segments of the trial.

The study’s overall “nocebo ratio” of 0.90 was calculated as the difference between symptom intensity scores on placebo and on no treatment divided by the difference between symptom intensity on the statin and on no treatment. The interpretation: 90% of the symptom burden felt by patients receiving atorvastatin was also felt during placebo use.

A total of 30 patients, contacted 6 months after the trial concluded, had resumed taking a statin, while “4 planned to do so and one could not be contacted,” the report noted. The 25 other patients weren’t receiving a statin and had no plans to take one.

In an important part of the trial, Dr. Howard said, at its conclusion the patients were shown their pattern of symptoms in relation to whether they were taking the statin, placebo, or neither. “Participants could see as clearly as we could the surprisingly powerful magnitude of the nocebo effect. And this led to half of our patients happily restarting statins.”

The implications of SAMSON, Dr. Welty said, “are very important, in that those developing symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin should be reassured that approximately half will be able to successful restart the statin.”

SAMSON was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Howard had no disclosures. Dr. Welty disclosed chairing the data safety monitoring committee for Empagliflozin International Clinical Trials, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A novel randomized trial taking on a vexing issue around one of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications has concluded that frequently intolerable statin side effects, such as muscle weakness or pain, are almost entirely a nocebo effect, the placebo effect’s darker cousin.

The many patients who report such symptoms while taking statins are indeed probably feeling them, but they are a result of taking the pills rather than any pharmacologic effects, concluded researchers based on their 60-patient study, Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects or Nocebo (SAMSON).

“SAMSON leaves no doubt that patients really do get side effects from statin tablets, but what it shows us is that 90% of this symptomatic burden is elicited by placebo tablets too,” said James P. Howard, MB, PhD, Imperial College London, when presenting the results Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. They were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Studies have shown that in practice “more than half of patients abandon statins completely within 2 years. And yet, in placebo-controlled trials, no more people stop statins than placebo,” Dr. Howard said.

“The most important message from SAMSON is that side effects from statin tablets are very real, but they are mainly caused by the act of taking the tablets, not by the statin that is contained within them.”
Patients in the trial, all of whom had a history of dropping statins because of side effects, each took atorvastatin 20 mg/day, a placebo, or neither pill for 1 month, alternating the regimens in randomized order over 1 year so that each was followed a total of 4 months. They used a smartphone app to record the severity of any side effects, not necessarily just pain, on a scale of 0-100.

Symptom intensity scores averaged 16.3 for atorvastatin and 15.4 for placebo, for a nonsignificant difference, but only 8.0 for no-pill months (P < .001 compared with the statin or placebo).
Because such symptoms seem to be based on patient expectations from statin therapy, positive communication about what the drugs can achieve and how the next treatment steps are described can play a big role in their continued use.

For example, “changing them to another statin is a very reasonable thing to do, but as soon as you start trying people on lower doses and working up, you’re sort of telling them that you’re expecting at some dose that they are going to get side effects,” cautioned Dr. Howard at a media briefing on SAMSON.

“The most important thing is to explain the evidence, and what our expectations are, maybe be a bit more optimistic about statins, and tell them they’re very unlikely to suffer from side effects,” he explained, “because the nocebo effect can only really rear its head if the patients are expecting to feel worse – just like the placebo effect will only work if people are expecting to feel better.”
Amit Khera, MD, who moderated the media briefing, said he always tells such patients: “Yes, 1 in 10 patients report having muscle ache. But first and foremost, 9 in 10 don’t. The vast majority of patients don’t get muscle aches. I think that’s really an important part of the communication.”

Now, after SAMSON, “I have an additional point that I’m going to tell them: out of the patients that get muscle aches, probably 90% of that is the anticipation of getting the statin, the nocebo effect,” said Dr. Khera, who directs the preventive cardiology program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In practice, however, many patients who report adverse statin effects do so later than 2 weeks after starting therapy, “so these findings cannot be generalized to them,” proposed Francine K. Welty, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, as the invited discussant after Dr. Howard’s presentation.

All 60 patients recruited for SAMSON had previously stopped taking a statin because of side effects that arose within 2 weeks of their first dose. That requirement was intended to boost chances that any further symptoms during the trial would arise within a month of starting each new round of pills, Dr. Howard said.

So the trial’s results, Dr. Welty said, “are limited to those subjects who develop symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin.”

Including only such patients may have created bias toward a nocebo effect, she said, because “non–drug-related side effects of medications are often greatest during the initial weeks of treatment and tend to abate over time.” For example, “metformin causes diarrhea and beta-blockers cause fatigue, but subjects do adapt and generally tolerate them very well.”

The patients, 25 women and 35 men, 90% of whom were white, received four pill bottles, each with a month’s supply of atorvastatin, four bottles each with 1 month of placebo, and four empty bottles each, to be used double blind for a month in randomized order.

Patients used the smartphone app to document their symptom scores, which ranged from 0 for no symptoms to 100 for symptoms that were the “worst imaginable,” the published report noted. Patients who experienced symptoms so severe as to be intolerable could stop the 1-month regimen they were then following, with instructions to resume the regimens in order starting the next month.

Eleven patients were unable to complete all 12 1-month segments of the trial.

The study’s overall “nocebo ratio” of 0.90 was calculated as the difference between symptom intensity scores on placebo and on no treatment divided by the difference between symptom intensity on the statin and on no treatment. The interpretation: 90% of the symptom burden felt by patients receiving atorvastatin was also felt during placebo use.

A total of 30 patients, contacted 6 months after the trial concluded, had resumed taking a statin, while “4 planned to do so and one could not be contacted,” the report noted. The 25 other patients weren’t receiving a statin and had no plans to take one.

In an important part of the trial, Dr. Howard said, at its conclusion the patients were shown their pattern of symptoms in relation to whether they were taking the statin, placebo, or neither. “Participants could see as clearly as we could the surprisingly powerful magnitude of the nocebo effect. And this led to half of our patients happily restarting statins.”

The implications of SAMSON, Dr. Welty said, “are very important, in that those developing symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin should be reassured that approximately half will be able to successful restart the statin.”

SAMSON was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Howard had no disclosures. Dr. Welty disclosed chairing the data safety monitoring committee for Empagliflozin International Clinical Trials, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

About one-third of patients with chronic hepatitis B maintained a profile consistent with inactive disease 1 year after withdrawal from treatment in the randomized HBRN trial, which compared tenofovir with and without pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN). The two treatment groups, however, had similarly low rates of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss, the trial’s primary end point.

The successful withdrawals could inform discussions with patients who are “very motivated to have a finite treatment course,” said investigator Norah Terrault, MD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. The results might “help patients in talking about expectations,” she said, because “there’s a one in three chance they won’t go back on treatment” if they meet specific metrics.

In HBRN, the metrics for withdrawal from treatment after 192 weeks included low levels of viral DNA (<1,000 IU/mL) for at least 24 weeks, no cirrhosis, negative week 144 test results for the hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg), and week 180 conversion to anti-HBe positivity.

Of 102 patients who received tenofovir monotherapy for 192 weeks and who completed the trial, 51 met these criteria. After withdrawal from treatment, 30% still had DNA levels below 1,000 IU/mL and normal ALT at week 240, which is consistent with inactive chronic hepatitis B.

Of the 99 participants in the combination group – who received PEG-IFN for the first 24 of 192 weeks in addition to tenofovir – 60 met the withdrawal criteria at 192 weeks. At week 240, 39% of this withdrawal group still had DNA and ALT values consistent with inactive disease.

Rates of HBsAg loss, which signals functional cure, were low in the two groups, however. At week 240, fewer patients in the tenofovir monotherapy group tested negative for HBsAg than in the tenofovir plus PEG-IFN combination group, but the difference was not significant (4.5% vs. 5.7%).

The timing of HBsAg loss differed between the groups. In the combination group, the loss largely occurred before treatment withdrawal, likely because of the antiviral effects of interferon, Dr. Terrault said in an interview. In the monotherapy group, the loss occurred after 192 weeks, possibly reflecting the immunologic consequences of treatment withdrawal.

The timing of ALT flares also differed between groups. In the combination group, 58% of flares occurred during the 24-week PEG-IFN period. In the monotherapy group, 70% of flares occurred after tenofovir was stopped at 192 weeks.

The flare picture is a tricky one, said Dr. Terrault. The episodes might be a positive factor in HBsAg loss, but severe flares carry a risk for decompensation. Good predictors of the severity of flares are lacking, and “that is the hurdle” to finding a balance with these trade-offs.
 

‘Partially a failure and partially a success’

The findings are “partially a failure and partially a success,” said Robert Gish, MD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University of Health, who was not involved in the study.

The low rates of HBsAg loss and the similarity between the two treatment groups represent the failure, he explained. The success is for the patients who were HBeAg-positive when the study began because they had high HBeAg loss rates in both the monotherapy and combination groups (41% vs. 61%; P = .06).

Loss of HBeAg was numerically higher in the combination group because of the interferon effect. That could be viewed as a “subjective benefit” of PEG-IFN, even though the difference wasn’t statistically significant, said Dr. Gish.

The low rates of HBsAg loss could relate to two features of the patient profile, he explained. At study entry, the participants had moderately high levels of quantitative HBsAg and were predominately of Asian ancestry, which are predisposing factors for limited HBsAg loss.

Previous studies have suggested that peak HBsAg loss could take 2-3 years to develop after treatment withdrawal in a trial population. In the HBRN trial, rates almost 1 year after withdrawal are similar to 1-year rates from other studies, Dr. Terrault said. How these results for HBsAg loss in the two treatment groups will look at the 3-year mark is not known.

The trial design standardized withdrawal protocol and the length of time patients were on treatment before withdrawal was attempted, which are strengths of this study, said Dr. Terrault. And “a triumph of this study is execution of a standard for nucleic acid treatment in a protocolized way, followed by withdrawal. That is something we are happy about.”

Dr. Terrault reported receiving institutional grant support from Roche/Genentech and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Gish reported receiving research support from Gilead Sciences and serving as a consultant and on advisory boards for several pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of patients with chronic hepatitis B maintained a profile consistent with inactive disease 1 year after withdrawal from treatment in the randomized HBRN trial, which compared tenofovir with and without pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN). The two treatment groups, however, had similarly low rates of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss, the trial’s primary end point.

The successful withdrawals could inform discussions with patients who are “very motivated to have a finite treatment course,” said investigator Norah Terrault, MD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. The results might “help patients in talking about expectations,” she said, because “there’s a one in three chance they won’t go back on treatment” if they meet specific metrics.

In HBRN, the metrics for withdrawal from treatment after 192 weeks included low levels of viral DNA (<1,000 IU/mL) for at least 24 weeks, no cirrhosis, negative week 144 test results for the hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg), and week 180 conversion to anti-HBe positivity.

Of 102 patients who received tenofovir monotherapy for 192 weeks and who completed the trial, 51 met these criteria. After withdrawal from treatment, 30% still had DNA levels below 1,000 IU/mL and normal ALT at week 240, which is consistent with inactive chronic hepatitis B.

Of the 99 participants in the combination group – who received PEG-IFN for the first 24 of 192 weeks in addition to tenofovir – 60 met the withdrawal criteria at 192 weeks. At week 240, 39% of this withdrawal group still had DNA and ALT values consistent with inactive disease.

Rates of HBsAg loss, which signals functional cure, were low in the two groups, however. At week 240, fewer patients in the tenofovir monotherapy group tested negative for HBsAg than in the tenofovir plus PEG-IFN combination group, but the difference was not significant (4.5% vs. 5.7%).

The timing of HBsAg loss differed between the groups. In the combination group, the loss largely occurred before treatment withdrawal, likely because of the antiviral effects of interferon, Dr. Terrault said in an interview. In the monotherapy group, the loss occurred after 192 weeks, possibly reflecting the immunologic consequences of treatment withdrawal.

The timing of ALT flares also differed between groups. In the combination group, 58% of flares occurred during the 24-week PEG-IFN period. In the monotherapy group, 70% of flares occurred after tenofovir was stopped at 192 weeks.

The flare picture is a tricky one, said Dr. Terrault. The episodes might be a positive factor in HBsAg loss, but severe flares carry a risk for decompensation. Good predictors of the severity of flares are lacking, and “that is the hurdle” to finding a balance with these trade-offs.
 

‘Partially a failure and partially a success’

The findings are “partially a failure and partially a success,” said Robert Gish, MD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University of Health, who was not involved in the study.

The low rates of HBsAg loss and the similarity between the two treatment groups represent the failure, he explained. The success is for the patients who were HBeAg-positive when the study began because they had high HBeAg loss rates in both the monotherapy and combination groups (41% vs. 61%; P = .06).

Loss of HBeAg was numerically higher in the combination group because of the interferon effect. That could be viewed as a “subjective benefit” of PEG-IFN, even though the difference wasn’t statistically significant, said Dr. Gish.

The low rates of HBsAg loss could relate to two features of the patient profile, he explained. At study entry, the participants had moderately high levels of quantitative HBsAg and were predominately of Asian ancestry, which are predisposing factors for limited HBsAg loss.

Previous studies have suggested that peak HBsAg loss could take 2-3 years to develop after treatment withdrawal in a trial population. In the HBRN trial, rates almost 1 year after withdrawal are similar to 1-year rates from other studies, Dr. Terrault said. How these results for HBsAg loss in the two treatment groups will look at the 3-year mark is not known.

The trial design standardized withdrawal protocol and the length of time patients were on treatment before withdrawal was attempted, which are strengths of this study, said Dr. Terrault. And “a triumph of this study is execution of a standard for nucleic acid treatment in a protocolized way, followed by withdrawal. That is something we are happy about.”

Dr. Terrault reported receiving institutional grant support from Roche/Genentech and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Gish reported receiving research support from Gilead Sciences and serving as a consultant and on advisory boards for several pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of patients with chronic hepatitis B maintained a profile consistent with inactive disease 1 year after withdrawal from treatment in the randomized HBRN trial, which compared tenofovir with and without pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN). The two treatment groups, however, had similarly low rates of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss, the trial’s primary end point.

The successful withdrawals could inform discussions with patients who are “very motivated to have a finite treatment course,” said investigator Norah Terrault, MD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. The results might “help patients in talking about expectations,” she said, because “there’s a one in three chance they won’t go back on treatment” if they meet specific metrics.

In HBRN, the metrics for withdrawal from treatment after 192 weeks included low levels of viral DNA (<1,000 IU/mL) for at least 24 weeks, no cirrhosis, negative week 144 test results for the hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg), and week 180 conversion to anti-HBe positivity.

Of 102 patients who received tenofovir monotherapy for 192 weeks and who completed the trial, 51 met these criteria. After withdrawal from treatment, 30% still had DNA levels below 1,000 IU/mL and normal ALT at week 240, which is consistent with inactive chronic hepatitis B.

Of the 99 participants in the combination group – who received PEG-IFN for the first 24 of 192 weeks in addition to tenofovir – 60 met the withdrawal criteria at 192 weeks. At week 240, 39% of this withdrawal group still had DNA and ALT values consistent with inactive disease.

Rates of HBsAg loss, which signals functional cure, were low in the two groups, however. At week 240, fewer patients in the tenofovir monotherapy group tested negative for HBsAg than in the tenofovir plus PEG-IFN combination group, but the difference was not significant (4.5% vs. 5.7%).

The timing of HBsAg loss differed between the groups. In the combination group, the loss largely occurred before treatment withdrawal, likely because of the antiviral effects of interferon, Dr. Terrault said in an interview. In the monotherapy group, the loss occurred after 192 weeks, possibly reflecting the immunologic consequences of treatment withdrawal.

The timing of ALT flares also differed between groups. In the combination group, 58% of flares occurred during the 24-week PEG-IFN period. In the monotherapy group, 70% of flares occurred after tenofovir was stopped at 192 weeks.

The flare picture is a tricky one, said Dr. Terrault. The episodes might be a positive factor in HBsAg loss, but severe flares carry a risk for decompensation. Good predictors of the severity of flares are lacking, and “that is the hurdle” to finding a balance with these trade-offs.
 

‘Partially a failure and partially a success’

The findings are “partially a failure and partially a success,” said Robert Gish, MD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University of Health, who was not involved in the study.

The low rates of HBsAg loss and the similarity between the two treatment groups represent the failure, he explained. The success is for the patients who were HBeAg-positive when the study began because they had high HBeAg loss rates in both the monotherapy and combination groups (41% vs. 61%; P = .06).

Loss of HBeAg was numerically higher in the combination group because of the interferon effect. That could be viewed as a “subjective benefit” of PEG-IFN, even though the difference wasn’t statistically significant, said Dr. Gish.

The low rates of HBsAg loss could relate to two features of the patient profile, he explained. At study entry, the participants had moderately high levels of quantitative HBsAg and were predominately of Asian ancestry, which are predisposing factors for limited HBsAg loss.

Previous studies have suggested that peak HBsAg loss could take 2-3 years to develop after treatment withdrawal in a trial population. In the HBRN trial, rates almost 1 year after withdrawal are similar to 1-year rates from other studies, Dr. Terrault said. How these results for HBsAg loss in the two treatment groups will look at the 3-year mark is not known.

The trial design standardized withdrawal protocol and the length of time patients were on treatment before withdrawal was attempted, which are strengths of this study, said Dr. Terrault. And “a triumph of this study is execution of a standard for nucleic acid treatment in a protocolized way, followed by withdrawal. That is something we are happy about.”

Dr. Terrault reported receiving institutional grant support from Roche/Genentech and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Gish reported receiving research support from Gilead Sciences and serving as a consultant and on advisory boards for several pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with primary biliary cholangitis experienced rapid improvements in itch and quality of life after treatment with linerixibat in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the small-molecule drug.

Moderate to severe pruritus “affects patients’ quality of life and is a huge burden for them,” said investigator Cynthia Levy, MD, from the University of Miami Health System.

“Finally having a medication that controls those symptoms is really important,” she said in an interview.

With a twice-daily mid-range dose of the drug for 12 weeks, patients with moderate to severe itch reported significantly less itch and better social and emotional quality of life, Dr. Levy reported at the Liver Meeting, where she presented findings from the phase 2 GLIMMER trial.

After a single-blind 4-week placebo run-in period for patients with itch scores of at least 4 on a 10-point rating scale, those with itch scores of at least 3 were then randomly assigned to one of five treatment regimens – once-daily linerixibat at doses of 20 mg, 90 mg, or 180 mg, or twice-daily doses of 40 mg or 90 mg – or to placebo.

After 12 weeks of treatment, all 147 participants once again received placebo for 4 weeks.

During the trial, participants recorded itch levels twice daily. The worst of these daily scores was averaged every 7 days to determine the mean worst daily itch.

The primary study endpoint was the change in worst daily itch from baseline after 12 weeks of treatment. Participants whose self-rated itch improved by 2 points on the 10-point scale were considered to have had a response to the drug.

Participants also completed the PBC-40, an instrument to measure quality of life in patients with primary biliary cholangitis, answering questions about itch and social and emotional status.

Reductions in worst daily itch from baseline to 12 weeks were steepest in the 40-mg twice-daily group, at 2.86 points, and in the 90-mg twice-daily group, at 2.25 points. In the placebo group, the mean decrease was 1.73 points.

During the subsequent 4 weeks of placebo, after treatment ended, the itch relief faded in all groups.

Scores on the PBC-40 itch domain improved significantly in every group, including placebo. However, only those in the twice-daily 40-mg group saw significant improvements on the social (P = .0016) and emotional (P = .0025) domains.
 

‘Between incremental and revolutionary’

The results are on a “kind of continuum between incremental and revolutionary,” said Jonathan A. Dranoff, MD, from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, who was not involved in the study. “It doesn’t hit either extreme, but it’s the first new drug for this purpose in forever, which by itself is a good thing.”

The placebo effect suggests that “maybe the actual contribution of the noncognitive brain to pruritus is bigger than we thought, and that’s worth noting,” he added. Nevertheless, “the drug still appears to have effects that are statistically different from placebo.”

The placebo effect in itching studies is always high but tends to wane over time, said Dr. Levy. This trial had a 4-week placebo run-in period to allow that effect to fade somewhat, she explained.

About 10% of the study cohort experienced drug-related diarrhea, which was expected, and about 10% dropped out of the trial because of drug-related adverse events.

Linerixibat is an ileal sodium-dependent bile acid transporter inhibitor, so the gut has to deal with the excess bile acid fallout, but the diarrhea is likely manageable with antidiarrheals, said Dr. Levy.

It is unlikely that diarrhea will deter patients with severe itch from using an effective drug when other drugs have failed them. “These patients are consumed by itch most of the time,” said Dr. Dranoff. “I think for people who don’t regularly treat patients with primary biliary cholangitis, it’s one of the underappreciated aspects of the disease.”

The improvements in social and emotional quality of life seen with linerixibat are not only statistically significant, they are also clinically significant, said Dr. Levy. “We are really expecting this to impact the lives of our patients and are looking forward to phase 3.”

Dr. Levy disclosed support from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Dranoff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with primary biliary cholangitis experienced rapid improvements in itch and quality of life after treatment with linerixibat in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the small-molecule drug.

Moderate to severe pruritus “affects patients’ quality of life and is a huge burden for them,” said investigator Cynthia Levy, MD, from the University of Miami Health System.

“Finally having a medication that controls those symptoms is really important,” she said in an interview.

With a twice-daily mid-range dose of the drug for 12 weeks, patients with moderate to severe itch reported significantly less itch and better social and emotional quality of life, Dr. Levy reported at the Liver Meeting, where she presented findings from the phase 2 GLIMMER trial.

After a single-blind 4-week placebo run-in period for patients with itch scores of at least 4 on a 10-point rating scale, those with itch scores of at least 3 were then randomly assigned to one of five treatment regimens – once-daily linerixibat at doses of 20 mg, 90 mg, or 180 mg, or twice-daily doses of 40 mg or 90 mg – or to placebo.

After 12 weeks of treatment, all 147 participants once again received placebo for 4 weeks.

During the trial, participants recorded itch levels twice daily. The worst of these daily scores was averaged every 7 days to determine the mean worst daily itch.

The primary study endpoint was the change in worst daily itch from baseline after 12 weeks of treatment. Participants whose self-rated itch improved by 2 points on the 10-point scale were considered to have had a response to the drug.

Participants also completed the PBC-40, an instrument to measure quality of life in patients with primary biliary cholangitis, answering questions about itch and social and emotional status.

Reductions in worst daily itch from baseline to 12 weeks were steepest in the 40-mg twice-daily group, at 2.86 points, and in the 90-mg twice-daily group, at 2.25 points. In the placebo group, the mean decrease was 1.73 points.

During the subsequent 4 weeks of placebo, after treatment ended, the itch relief faded in all groups.

Scores on the PBC-40 itch domain improved significantly in every group, including placebo. However, only those in the twice-daily 40-mg group saw significant improvements on the social (P = .0016) and emotional (P = .0025) domains.
 

‘Between incremental and revolutionary’

The results are on a “kind of continuum between incremental and revolutionary,” said Jonathan A. Dranoff, MD, from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, who was not involved in the study. “It doesn’t hit either extreme, but it’s the first new drug for this purpose in forever, which by itself is a good thing.”

The placebo effect suggests that “maybe the actual contribution of the noncognitive brain to pruritus is bigger than we thought, and that’s worth noting,” he added. Nevertheless, “the drug still appears to have effects that are statistically different from placebo.”

The placebo effect in itching studies is always high but tends to wane over time, said Dr. Levy. This trial had a 4-week placebo run-in period to allow that effect to fade somewhat, she explained.

About 10% of the study cohort experienced drug-related diarrhea, which was expected, and about 10% dropped out of the trial because of drug-related adverse events.

Linerixibat is an ileal sodium-dependent bile acid transporter inhibitor, so the gut has to deal with the excess bile acid fallout, but the diarrhea is likely manageable with antidiarrheals, said Dr. Levy.

It is unlikely that diarrhea will deter patients with severe itch from using an effective drug when other drugs have failed them. “These patients are consumed by itch most of the time,” said Dr. Dranoff. “I think for people who don’t regularly treat patients with primary biliary cholangitis, it’s one of the underappreciated aspects of the disease.”

The improvements in social and emotional quality of life seen with linerixibat are not only statistically significant, they are also clinically significant, said Dr. Levy. “We are really expecting this to impact the lives of our patients and are looking forward to phase 3.”

Dr. Levy disclosed support from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Dranoff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with primary biliary cholangitis experienced rapid improvements in itch and quality of life after treatment with linerixibat in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the small-molecule drug.

Moderate to severe pruritus “affects patients’ quality of life and is a huge burden for them,” said investigator Cynthia Levy, MD, from the University of Miami Health System.

“Finally having a medication that controls those symptoms is really important,” she said in an interview.

With a twice-daily mid-range dose of the drug for 12 weeks, patients with moderate to severe itch reported significantly less itch and better social and emotional quality of life, Dr. Levy reported at the Liver Meeting, where she presented findings from the phase 2 GLIMMER trial.

After a single-blind 4-week placebo run-in period for patients with itch scores of at least 4 on a 10-point rating scale, those with itch scores of at least 3 were then randomly assigned to one of five treatment regimens – once-daily linerixibat at doses of 20 mg, 90 mg, or 180 mg, or twice-daily doses of 40 mg or 90 mg – or to placebo.

After 12 weeks of treatment, all 147 participants once again received placebo for 4 weeks.

During the trial, participants recorded itch levels twice daily. The worst of these daily scores was averaged every 7 days to determine the mean worst daily itch.

The primary study endpoint was the change in worst daily itch from baseline after 12 weeks of treatment. Participants whose self-rated itch improved by 2 points on the 10-point scale were considered to have had a response to the drug.

Participants also completed the PBC-40, an instrument to measure quality of life in patients with primary biliary cholangitis, answering questions about itch and social and emotional status.

Reductions in worst daily itch from baseline to 12 weeks were steepest in the 40-mg twice-daily group, at 2.86 points, and in the 90-mg twice-daily group, at 2.25 points. In the placebo group, the mean decrease was 1.73 points.

During the subsequent 4 weeks of placebo, after treatment ended, the itch relief faded in all groups.

Scores on the PBC-40 itch domain improved significantly in every group, including placebo. However, only those in the twice-daily 40-mg group saw significant improvements on the social (P = .0016) and emotional (P = .0025) domains.
 

‘Between incremental and revolutionary’

The results are on a “kind of continuum between incremental and revolutionary,” said Jonathan A. Dranoff, MD, from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, who was not involved in the study. “It doesn’t hit either extreme, but it’s the first new drug for this purpose in forever, which by itself is a good thing.”

The placebo effect suggests that “maybe the actual contribution of the noncognitive brain to pruritus is bigger than we thought, and that’s worth noting,” he added. Nevertheless, “the drug still appears to have effects that are statistically different from placebo.”

The placebo effect in itching studies is always high but tends to wane over time, said Dr. Levy. This trial had a 4-week placebo run-in period to allow that effect to fade somewhat, she explained.

About 10% of the study cohort experienced drug-related diarrhea, which was expected, and about 10% dropped out of the trial because of drug-related adverse events.

Linerixibat is an ileal sodium-dependent bile acid transporter inhibitor, so the gut has to deal with the excess bile acid fallout, but the diarrhea is likely manageable with antidiarrheals, said Dr. Levy.

It is unlikely that diarrhea will deter patients with severe itch from using an effective drug when other drugs have failed them. “These patients are consumed by itch most of the time,” said Dr. Dranoff. “I think for people who don’t regularly treat patients with primary biliary cholangitis, it’s one of the underappreciated aspects of the disease.”

The improvements in social and emotional quality of life seen with linerixibat are not only statistically significant, they are also clinically significant, said Dr. Levy. “We are really expecting this to impact the lives of our patients and are looking forward to phase 3.”

Dr. Levy disclosed support from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Dranoff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Oral hairy leukoplakia (OHL) is an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)–mediated mucocutaneous disease that often involves the lingual epithelium. The lateral portions of the tongue are the most commonly affected sites. The lesions often are described as asymptomatic, white, corrugated patches or plaques that are unable to be scraped off.¹ Oral hairy leukoplakia was first identified in 1984 and was considered to be associated with AIDS.² An association between the presence of OHL and the degree of immunosuppression as well as the severity of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been reported.³ Although OHL initially was considered to be pathognomonic for HIV, it has since been described in multiple other immunosuppressive conditions.⁴ Numerous medical conditions and combinations of immunosuppressive medications have been associated with OHL in patients who were HIV negative.⁵

Adalimumab is an injectable human IgG1 recombinant antibody to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α).⁶ It currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, noninfectious uveitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and plaque psoriasis.⁷ We report a case of OHL associated with the use of adalimumab.

A 47-year-old woman initially presented with chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Her medical history was notable for bipolar disorder, migraines, hypertension, and tobacco use. The patient’s psoriasis initially was well controlled on a regimen of topical steroids and methotrexate; however, methotrexate was stopped after 2.5 years due to a mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase level, as well as an abnormal liver biopsy showing mildly active (grade 1 of 3) steatohepatitis with portal chronic inflammation, pericellular fibrosis, and portal and focal periportal fibrosis (stage 1-2 of 4). The patient and her dermatologist were uncomfortable continuing methotrexate with these findings. After baseline screening including a negative purified protein derivative skin test, adalimumab was initiated. A loading dose of 80 mg subcutaneously (SQ) was given, followed by adalimumab 40 mg SQ 1 week later and 40 mg every other week as maintenance.

The patient’s psoriasis was well controlled with adalimumab for 22 months, but she then developed a thin white plaque on the right lateral tongue (Figure 1). An incisional biopsy of the tongue performed by an oral surgeon revealed hyperkeratosis with Candida colonization and viral cytopathic effect (Figure 2). An EBV DNA in situ hybridization stain revealed focal positivity within these cells (Figure 3), leading to a diagnosis of OHL. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated a normal complete blood cell count with differential and liver panel as well as a negative HIV test. The patient otherwise felt well and denied fevers, lymphadenopathy, and weight loss.

Oral hairy leukoplakia is associated with upregulated EBV replication and EBV-encoded proteins such as latent membrane protein 1.² It often presents as white or gray patches on the lateral lingual margins with prominent folds and/or projections, giving a shaggy appearance. Oral hairy leukoplakia often is specific for HIV infection and rarely is associated with other immunodeficiencies.² Prasad and Bilodeau⁵ performed a literature review of medical conditions and immunosuppressive medications associated with OHL in patients without HIV. Allogeneic transplant was associated with the highest incidence of OHL in HIV-negative patients (59.2% [45/76]).⁵ Various combinations of immunosuppressive medications (eg, prednisone, cyclosporine, azathioprine) also may be implicated in cases of HIV-negative patients with OHL. A case of OHL also has been reported with long-standing use of inhaled corticosteroids in an immunocompetent, HIV-negative patient.⁶ Another case was reported with long-term use of the aromatic antiepileptic lamotrigine, which resolved once stopping the medication.⁸ Although EBV is an oncovirus and has been associated with lymphoproliferative disorders and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, OHL is not considered to be a premalignant lesion.⁷ Despite the strong association between OHL and HIV, our patient was HIV negative. The only immunocompromising factor in our patient was the use of adalimumab to treat psoriasis. We did not conduct further testing for immunodeficiency states because the OHL spontaneously resolved when the adalimumab was discontinued.

PubMed and Ovid searches of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms adalimumab and oral hairy leukoplakia as well as TNF-alpha inhibitor and oral hairy leukoplakia with humans and English language as limitations revealed that no cases have been reported in the literature demonstrating an association between OHL and adalimumab or any other TNF-α inhibitor. However, Cetkovska et al⁹ reported a case of EBV hepatitis and subsequently chronic hepatitis as a complication of infliximab used for the treatment of chronic psoriasis. Because TNF-α and IFN-γ play an important role in controlling viral infections, there is an increased risk for reactivating a viral illness when depleting TNF through pharmacologic measures (ie, adalimumab, infliximab).⁸ Another case of EBV-associated plasmablastic lymphoma was reported after 1 year of adalimumab use in a patient with Crohn disease. The plasmablastic lymphoma resolved after 4 rounds of chemotherapy.¹⁰

The only contraindication for the use of adalimumab is a known hypersensitivity to the drug. Relative contraindications for use of adalimumab include active tuberculosis, demyelinating disease, hematologic diseases (ie, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia), lymphoma, hepatitis C, and hepatitis B.¹¹ The most common adverse effect of adalimumab is an injection-site reaction. Additional reported adverse effects of TNF-α inhibitors as a class are lymphoma, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, reactivation of latent tuberculosis, congestive heart failure, autoimmunity, and hematologic toxicity.¹¹

This case demonstrates an association between adalimumab and OHL in an HIV-negative patient. Although the mechanism behind OHL and immunosuppression remains to be elucidated, this association is important to keep in mind when using adalimumab or other TNF-α inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis or other medical conditions.

To the Editor:

Oral hairy leukoplakia (OHL) is an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)–mediated mucocutaneous disease that often involves the lingual epithelium. The lateral portions of the tongue are the most commonly affected sites. The lesions often are described as asymptomatic, white, corrugated patches or plaques that are unable to be scraped off.¹ Oral hairy leukoplakia was first identified in 1984 and was considered to be associated with AIDS.² An association between the presence of OHL and the degree of immunosuppression as well as the severity of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been reported.³ Although OHL initially was considered to be pathognomonic for HIV, it has since been described in multiple other immunosuppressive conditions.⁴ Numerous medical conditions and combinations of immunosuppressive medications have been associated with OHL in patients who were HIV negative.⁵

Adalimumab is an injectable human IgG1 recombinant antibody to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α).⁶ It currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, noninfectious uveitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and plaque psoriasis.⁷ We report a case of OHL associated with the use of adalimumab.

A 47-year-old woman initially presented with chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Her medical history was notable for bipolar disorder, migraines, hypertension, and tobacco use. The patient’s psoriasis initially was well controlled on a regimen of topical steroids and methotrexate; however, methotrexate was stopped after 2.5 years due to a mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase level, as well as an abnormal liver biopsy showing mildly active (grade 1 of 3) steatohepatitis with portal chronic inflammation, pericellular fibrosis, and portal and focal periportal fibrosis (stage 1-2 of 4). The patient and her dermatologist were uncomfortable continuing methotrexate with these findings. After baseline screening including a negative purified protein derivative skin test, adalimumab was initiated. A loading dose of 80 mg subcutaneously (SQ) was given, followed by adalimumab 40 mg SQ 1 week later and 40 mg every other week as maintenance.

The patient’s psoriasis was well controlled with adalimumab for 22 months, but she then developed a thin white plaque on the right lateral tongue (Figure 1). An incisional biopsy of the tongue performed by an oral surgeon revealed hyperkeratosis with Candida colonization and viral cytopathic effect (Figure 2). An EBV DNA in situ hybridization stain revealed focal positivity within these cells (Figure 3), leading to a diagnosis of OHL. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated a normal complete blood cell count with differential and liver panel as well as a negative HIV test. The patient otherwise felt well and denied fevers, lymphadenopathy, and weight loss.

Oral hairy leukoplakia is associated with upregulated EBV replication and EBV-encoded proteins such as latent membrane protein 1.² It often presents as white or gray patches on the lateral lingual margins with prominent folds and/or projections, giving a shaggy appearance. Oral hairy leukoplakia often is specific for HIV infection and rarely is associated with other immunodeficiencies.² Prasad and Bilodeau⁵ performed a literature review of medical conditions and immunosuppressive medications associated with OHL in patients without HIV. Allogeneic transplant was associated with the highest incidence of OHL in HIV-negative patients (59.2% [45/76]).⁵ Various combinations of immunosuppressive medications (eg, prednisone, cyclosporine, azathioprine) also may be implicated in cases of HIV-negative patients with OHL. A case of OHL also has been reported with long-standing use of inhaled corticosteroids in an immunocompetent, HIV-negative patient.⁶ Another case was reported with long-term use of the aromatic antiepileptic lamotrigine, which resolved once stopping the medication.⁸ Although EBV is an oncovirus and has been associated with lymphoproliferative disorders and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, OHL is not considered to be a premalignant lesion.⁷ Despite the strong association between OHL and HIV, our patient was HIV negative. The only immunocompromising factor in our patient was the use of adalimumab to treat psoriasis. We did not conduct further testing for immunodeficiency states because the OHL spontaneously resolved when the adalimumab was discontinued.

PubMed and Ovid searches of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms adalimumab and oral hairy leukoplakia as well as TNF-alpha inhibitor and oral hairy leukoplakia with humans and English language as limitations revealed that no cases have been reported in the literature demonstrating an association between OHL and adalimumab or any other TNF-α inhibitor. However, Cetkovska et al⁹ reported a case of EBV hepatitis and subsequently chronic hepatitis as a complication of infliximab used for the treatment of chronic psoriasis. Because TNF-α and IFN-γ play an important role in controlling viral infections, there is an increased risk for reactivating a viral illness when depleting TNF through pharmacologic measures (ie, adalimumab, infliximab).⁸ Another case of EBV-associated plasmablastic lymphoma was reported after 1 year of adalimumab use in a patient with Crohn disease. The plasmablastic lymphoma resolved after 4 rounds of chemotherapy.¹⁰

The only contraindication for the use of adalimumab is a known hypersensitivity to the drug. Relative contraindications for use of adalimumab include active tuberculosis, demyelinating disease, hematologic diseases (ie, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia), lymphoma, hepatitis C, and hepatitis B.¹¹ The most common adverse effect of adalimumab is an injection-site reaction. Additional reported adverse effects of TNF-α inhibitors as a class are lymphoma, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, reactivation of latent tuberculosis, congestive heart failure, autoimmunity, and hematologic toxicity.¹¹

This case demonstrates an association between adalimumab and OHL in an HIV-negative patient. Although the mechanism behind OHL and immunosuppression remains to be elucidated, this association is important to keep in mind when using adalimumab or other TNF-α inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis or other medical conditions.

To the Editor:

Oral hairy leukoplakia (OHL) is an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)–mediated mucocutaneous disease that often involves the lingual epithelium. The lateral portions of the tongue are the most commonly affected sites. The lesions often are described as asymptomatic, white, corrugated patches or plaques that are unable to be scraped off.¹ Oral hairy leukoplakia was first identified in 1984 and was considered to be associated with AIDS.² An association between the presence of OHL and the degree of immunosuppression as well as the severity of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been reported.³ Although OHL initially was considered to be pathognomonic for HIV, it has since been described in multiple other immunosuppressive conditions.⁴ Numerous medical conditions and combinations of immunosuppressive medications have been associated with OHL in patients who were HIV negative.⁵

Adalimumab is an injectable human IgG1 recombinant antibody to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α).⁶ It currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, noninfectious uveitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and plaque psoriasis.⁷ We report a case of OHL associated with the use of adalimumab.

A 47-year-old woman initially presented with chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Her medical history was notable for bipolar disorder, migraines, hypertension, and tobacco use. The patient’s psoriasis initially was well controlled on a regimen of topical steroids and methotrexate; however, methotrexate was stopped after 2.5 years due to a mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase level, as well as an abnormal liver biopsy showing mildly active (grade 1 of 3) steatohepatitis with portal chronic inflammation, pericellular fibrosis, and portal and focal periportal fibrosis (stage 1-2 of 4). The patient and her dermatologist were uncomfortable continuing methotrexate with these findings. After baseline screening including a negative purified protein derivative skin test, adalimumab was initiated. A loading dose of 80 mg subcutaneously (SQ) was given, followed by adalimumab 40 mg SQ 1 week later and 40 mg every other week as maintenance.

The patient’s psoriasis was well controlled with adalimumab for 22 months, but she then developed a thin white plaque on the right lateral tongue (Figure 1). An incisional biopsy of the tongue performed by an oral surgeon revealed hyperkeratosis with Candida colonization and viral cytopathic effect (Figure 2). An EBV DNA in situ hybridization stain revealed focal positivity within these cells (Figure 3), leading to a diagnosis of OHL. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated a normal complete blood cell count with differential and liver panel as well as a negative HIV test. The patient otherwise felt well and denied fevers, lymphadenopathy, and weight loss.

Oral hairy leukoplakia is associated with upregulated EBV replication and EBV-encoded proteins such as latent membrane protein 1.² It often presents as white or gray patches on the lateral lingual margins with prominent folds and/or projections, giving a shaggy appearance. Oral hairy leukoplakia often is specific for HIV infection and rarely is associated with other immunodeficiencies.² Prasad and Bilodeau⁵ performed a literature review of medical conditions and immunosuppressive medications associated with OHL in patients without HIV. Allogeneic transplant was associated with the highest incidence of OHL in HIV-negative patients (59.2% [45/76]).⁵ Various combinations of immunosuppressive medications (eg, prednisone, cyclosporine, azathioprine) also may be implicated in cases of HIV-negative patients with OHL. A case of OHL also has been reported with long-standing use of inhaled corticosteroids in an immunocompetent, HIV-negative patient.⁶ Another case was reported with long-term use of the aromatic antiepileptic lamotrigine, which resolved once stopping the medication.⁸ Although EBV is an oncovirus and has been associated with lymphoproliferative disorders and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, OHL is not considered to be a premalignant lesion.⁷ Despite the strong association between OHL and HIV, our patient was HIV negative. The only immunocompromising factor in our patient was the use of adalimumab to treat psoriasis. We did not conduct further testing for immunodeficiency states because the OHL spontaneously resolved when the adalimumab was discontinued.

PubMed and Ovid searches of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms adalimumab and oral hairy leukoplakia as well as TNF-alpha inhibitor and oral hairy leukoplakia with humans and English language as limitations revealed that no cases have been reported in the literature demonstrating an association between OHL and adalimumab or any other TNF-α inhibitor. However, Cetkovska et al⁹ reported a case of EBV hepatitis and subsequently chronic hepatitis as a complication of infliximab used for the treatment of chronic psoriasis. Because TNF-α and IFN-γ play an important role in controlling viral infections, there is an increased risk for reactivating a viral illness when depleting TNF through pharmacologic measures (ie, adalimumab, infliximab).⁸ Another case of EBV-associated plasmablastic lymphoma was reported after 1 year of adalimumab use in a patient with Crohn disease. The plasmablastic lymphoma resolved after 4 rounds of chemotherapy.¹⁰

The only contraindication for the use of adalimumab is a known hypersensitivity to the drug. Relative contraindications for use of adalimumab include active tuberculosis, demyelinating disease, hematologic diseases (ie, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia), lymphoma, hepatitis C, and hepatitis B.¹¹ The most common adverse effect of adalimumab is an injection-site reaction. Additional reported adverse effects of TNF-α inhibitors as a class are lymphoma, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, reactivation of latent tuberculosis, congestive heart failure, autoimmunity, and hematologic toxicity.¹¹

This case demonstrates an association between adalimumab and OHL in an HIV-negative patient. Although the mechanism behind OHL and immunosuppression remains to be elucidated, this association is important to keep in mind when using adalimumab or other TNF-α inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis or other medical conditions.

“What do you think of all this election stuff?” I froze. Sitting on the exam table was a 50-something-year-old woman. Her hair was long, but not gray. She was wearing a mask without distinctive markings, such as Trump lips or #BLM to identify the political leanings of the owner. She had a subtle New York accent, perhaps dating back to the Giuliani years. It was hard to know her intention. “It’s a trap!” I could hear Admiral Ackbar’s voice in my head. “Don’t engage.” We all know nothing erodes trust faster than showing your blue or red colors before you know which your patient identifies.

Instead, I replied that indeed it has been a stressful year for us all. Then I paused. She shifted a bit and tugged at the gown sleeves and admitted this was the most stress she felt in years. She was seeing me for lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, a terribly itchy, sometimes-disfiguring eruption that can occur in the vulva. She was dealing with COVID-19, kids, divorce, a new partner, working from home, parents, and now the election drama. 

At this point in the visit, I knew I could help her. First, the treatment for lichen sclerosus is straightforward and mostly effective. Second, I knew I’d have 7 minutes to spare to just listen. It was a lucky break, as often no such gift of time presents itself while seeing patients in a busy clinic. We take vitals, history (typing), do an exam, make a diagnosis (more typing), and maybe a procedure (yet more typing). All of this is necessary, but sometimes not what our patient needs. Some really need just to connect and share their burden with someone who isn’t a friend or family. As physicians, we have a unique opportunity to see and hear people without judgment.

This reminds me of a recent episode from Sam Harris’s podcast, “Making Sense.” Mr. Harris, a philosopher (and “blue” all the way through) revealed his insight into Presidents Trump’s appeal. Leaving policy aside, Mr. Harris notes that people are drawn to the President because he never judges you. He is incapable of being sanctimonious, Mr. Harris argues, and therefore creates a safe space for people to continue their lives, however flawed, without expectation that they improve. 

I’m unsure just how much of this theory explains the devotion of his supporters, but it resonated with me. We doctors are sanctimonious by nature. The better part of my day is spent prodding people to be better: Wear more sunscreen, exercise more, stop believing in conspiracy theories, get your flu shot, and above all, stop scratching! In doing so, I’m in a way judging them. Finger wagging: You’re lazy or poor or dumb or stubborn. “You aren’t as good as me,” is what they might feel after 15 minutes of my pep talk.

But what if that’s wrong? What if they are just fine exactly the way they are? Perhaps what my lichen sclerosis patient needs more than anything is unconditional attention? She, like most of our patients, is well aware of how her shortcomings might contribute to her own anxiety or difficulties. And now she has this rash and that’s probably somehow her fault too, she thinks. 

How can I best help her? Betamethasone dipropionate b.i.d. for 2 weeks and spend the last 7 minutes just sitting and listening without judgment or advice. I don’t know who she wanted to win the election. It didn’t matter, she was exactly right to believe what she believed, either way.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“What do you think of all this election stuff?” I froze. Sitting on the exam table was a 50-something-year-old woman. Her hair was long, but not gray. She was wearing a mask without distinctive markings, such as Trump lips or #BLM to identify the political leanings of the owner. She had a subtle New York accent, perhaps dating back to the Giuliani years. It was hard to know her intention. “It’s a trap!” I could hear Admiral Ackbar’s voice in my head. “Don’t engage.” We all know nothing erodes trust faster than showing your blue or red colors before you know which your patient identifies.

Instead, I replied that indeed it has been a stressful year for us all. Then I paused. She shifted a bit and tugged at the gown sleeves and admitted this was the most stress she felt in years. She was seeing me for lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, a terribly itchy, sometimes-disfiguring eruption that can occur in the vulva. She was dealing with COVID-19, kids, divorce, a new partner, working from home, parents, and now the election drama. 

At this point in the visit, I knew I could help her. First, the treatment for lichen sclerosus is straightforward and mostly effective. Second, I knew I’d have 7 minutes to spare to just listen. It was a lucky break, as often no such gift of time presents itself while seeing patients in a busy clinic. We take vitals, history (typing), do an exam, make a diagnosis (more typing), and maybe a procedure (yet more typing). All of this is necessary, but sometimes not what our patient needs. Some really need just to connect and share their burden with someone who isn’t a friend or family. As physicians, we have a unique opportunity to see and hear people without judgment.

This reminds me of a recent episode from Sam Harris’s podcast, “Making Sense.” Mr. Harris, a philosopher (and “blue” all the way through) revealed his insight into Presidents Trump’s appeal. Leaving policy aside, Mr. Harris notes that people are drawn to the President because he never judges you. He is incapable of being sanctimonious, Mr. Harris argues, and therefore creates a safe space for people to continue their lives, however flawed, without expectation that they improve. 

I’m unsure just how much of this theory explains the devotion of his supporters, but it resonated with me. We doctors are sanctimonious by nature. The better part of my day is spent prodding people to be better: Wear more sunscreen, exercise more, stop believing in conspiracy theories, get your flu shot, and above all, stop scratching! In doing so, I’m in a way judging them. Finger wagging: You’re lazy or poor or dumb or stubborn. “You aren’t as good as me,” is what they might feel after 15 minutes of my pep talk.

But what if that’s wrong? What if they are just fine exactly the way they are? Perhaps what my lichen sclerosis patient needs more than anything is unconditional attention? She, like most of our patients, is well aware of how her shortcomings might contribute to her own anxiety or difficulties. And now she has this rash and that’s probably somehow her fault too, she thinks. 

How can I best help her? Betamethasone dipropionate b.i.d. for 2 weeks and spend the last 7 minutes just sitting and listening without judgment or advice. I don’t know who she wanted to win the election. It didn’t matter, she was exactly right to believe what she believed, either way.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“What do you think of all this election stuff?” I froze. Sitting on the exam table was a 50-something-year-old woman. Her hair was long, but not gray. She was wearing a mask without distinctive markings, such as Trump lips or #BLM to identify the political leanings of the owner. She had a subtle New York accent, perhaps dating back to the Giuliani years. It was hard to know her intention. “It’s a trap!” I could hear Admiral Ackbar’s voice in my head. “Don’t engage.” We all know nothing erodes trust faster than showing your blue or red colors before you know which your patient identifies.

Instead, I replied that indeed it has been a stressful year for us all. Then I paused. She shifted a bit and tugged at the gown sleeves and admitted this was the most stress she felt in years. She was seeing me for lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, a terribly itchy, sometimes-disfiguring eruption that can occur in the vulva. She was dealing with COVID-19, kids, divorce, a new partner, working from home, parents, and now the election drama. 

At this point in the visit, I knew I could help her. First, the treatment for lichen sclerosus is straightforward and mostly effective. Second, I knew I’d have 7 minutes to spare to just listen. It was a lucky break, as often no such gift of time presents itself while seeing patients in a busy clinic. We take vitals, history (typing), do an exam, make a diagnosis (more typing), and maybe a procedure (yet more typing). All of this is necessary, but sometimes not what our patient needs. Some really need just to connect and share their burden with someone who isn’t a friend or family. As physicians, we have a unique opportunity to see and hear people without judgment.

This reminds me of a recent episode from Sam Harris’s podcast, “Making Sense.” Mr. Harris, a philosopher (and “blue” all the way through) revealed his insight into Presidents Trump’s appeal. Leaving policy aside, Mr. Harris notes that people are drawn to the President because he never judges you. He is incapable of being sanctimonious, Mr. Harris argues, and therefore creates a safe space for people to continue their lives, however flawed, without expectation that they improve. 

I’m unsure just how much of this theory explains the devotion of his supporters, but it resonated with me. We doctors are sanctimonious by nature. The better part of my day is spent prodding people to be better: Wear more sunscreen, exercise more, stop believing in conspiracy theories, get your flu shot, and above all, stop scratching! In doing so, I’m in a way judging them. Finger wagging: You’re lazy or poor or dumb or stubborn. “You aren’t as good as me,” is what they might feel after 15 minutes of my pep talk.

But what if that’s wrong? What if they are just fine exactly the way they are? Perhaps what my lichen sclerosis patient needs more than anything is unconditional attention? She, like most of our patients, is well aware of how her shortcomings might contribute to her own anxiety or difficulties. And now she has this rash and that’s probably somehow her fault too, she thinks. 

How can I best help her? Betamethasone dipropionate b.i.d. for 2 weeks and spend the last 7 minutes just sitting and listening without judgment or advice. I don’t know who she wanted to win the election. It didn’t matter, she was exactly right to believe what she believed, either way.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

The Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, yielded 94.5% efficacy in early results and is generally well tolerated, the company announced early Monday. The product can be stored at refrigeration temperatures common to many physician offices, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The first interim results of the phase 3 COVE trial included 95 participants with confirmed COVID-19. An independent data safety monitoring board, which was appointed by the National Institutes of Health, informed Moderna that 90 of the patients who were positive for COVID-19 were in a placebo group and that 5 patients were in the mRNA-1273 vaccine group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (P < .0001).

Interim data included 11 patients with severe COVID-19, all of whom were in the placebo group.

“This positive interim analysis from our phase 3 study has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.

The vaccine met its primary study endpoint, which was based on adjudicated data that were collected starting 2 weeks after the second dose of mRNA-1273. The interim study population included people who could be at higher risk for COVID-19, including 15 adults aged 65 years and older and 20 participants from diverse communities.
 

Safety data

The DSMB also reviewed safety data for the COVE study interim results. The vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated, as determined on the basis of solicited adverse events. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were generally short-lived, according to a company news release.

Injection-site pain was reported in 2.7% of participants after the first dose. After the second dose, 9.7% of participants reported fatigue, 8.9% reported myalgia, 5.2% reported arthralgia, 4.5% reported headache, 4.1% reported pain, and 2.0% reported erythema or redness at the injection site.

Moderna plans to request emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks. The company expects that the EUA will be based on more data from the COVE study, including a final analysis of 151 patients with a median follow-up of more than 2 months. Moderna also plans to seek authorizations from global regulatory agencies.

The company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 ready to ship in the United States by the end of the year. In addition, the company says it remains on track to manufacture between 500 million and 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

Moderna is developing distribution plans in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, and McKesson, a COVID-19 vaccine distributor contracted by the U.S. government.
 

Refrigeration requirements

The mRNA-1273 vaccine can be shipped and stored for up to 6 months at –20° C (about –4° F), a temperature maintained in most home or medical freezers, according to Moderna. The company expects that, after the product thaws, it will remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2°-8° C (36°-46° F) for up to 30 days within the 6-month shelf life.

Because the mRNA-1273 vaccine is stable at these refrigerator temperatures, it can be stored at most physicians’ offices, pharmacies, and hospitals, the company noted. In contrast, the similar Pfizer BTN162b2 vaccine – early results for which showed a 90% efficacy rate – requires shipment and storage at “deep-freeze” conditions of –70° C or –80° C, which is more challenging from a logistic point of view.

Moderna’s mRNA-1273 can be kept at room temperature for up to 12 hours after removal from a refrigerator for patient administration. The vaccine will not require dilution prior to use.

More than 30,000 people aged older than 18 years in the United States are enrolled in the COVE study. The research is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health & Human Services.

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

The Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, yielded 94.5% efficacy in early results and is generally well tolerated, the company announced early Monday. The product can be stored at refrigeration temperatures common to many physician offices, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The first interim results of the phase 3 COVE trial included 95 participants with confirmed COVID-19. An independent data safety monitoring board, which was appointed by the National Institutes of Health, informed Moderna that 90 of the patients who were positive for COVID-19 were in a placebo group and that 5 patients were in the mRNA-1273 vaccine group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (P < .0001).

Interim data included 11 patients with severe COVID-19, all of whom were in the placebo group.

“This positive interim analysis from our phase 3 study has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.

The vaccine met its primary study endpoint, which was based on adjudicated data that were collected starting 2 weeks after the second dose of mRNA-1273. The interim study population included people who could be at higher risk for COVID-19, including 15 adults aged 65 years and older and 20 participants from diverse communities.
 

Safety data

The DSMB also reviewed safety data for the COVE study interim results. The vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated, as determined on the basis of solicited adverse events. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were generally short-lived, according to a company news release.

Injection-site pain was reported in 2.7% of participants after the first dose. After the second dose, 9.7% of participants reported fatigue, 8.9% reported myalgia, 5.2% reported arthralgia, 4.5% reported headache, 4.1% reported pain, and 2.0% reported erythema or redness at the injection site.

Moderna plans to request emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks. The company expects that the EUA will be based on more data from the COVE study, including a final analysis of 151 patients with a median follow-up of more than 2 months. Moderna also plans to seek authorizations from global regulatory agencies.

The company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 ready to ship in the United States by the end of the year. In addition, the company says it remains on track to manufacture between 500 million and 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

Moderna is developing distribution plans in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, and McKesson, a COVID-19 vaccine distributor contracted by the U.S. government.
 

Refrigeration requirements

The mRNA-1273 vaccine can be shipped and stored for up to 6 months at –20° C (about –4° F), a temperature maintained in most home or medical freezers, according to Moderna. The company expects that, after the product thaws, it will remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2°-8° C (36°-46° F) for up to 30 days within the 6-month shelf life.

Because the mRNA-1273 vaccine is stable at these refrigerator temperatures, it can be stored at most physicians’ offices, pharmacies, and hospitals, the company noted. In contrast, the similar Pfizer BTN162b2 vaccine – early results for which showed a 90% efficacy rate – requires shipment and storage at “deep-freeze” conditions of –70° C or –80° C, which is more challenging from a logistic point of view.

Moderna’s mRNA-1273 can be kept at room temperature for up to 12 hours after removal from a refrigerator for patient administration. The vaccine will not require dilution prior to use.

More than 30,000 people aged older than 18 years in the United States are enrolled in the COVE study. The research is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health & Human Services.

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

The Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, yielded 94.5% efficacy in early results and is generally well tolerated, the company announced early Monday. The product can be stored at refrigeration temperatures common to many physician offices, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The first interim results of the phase 3 COVE trial included 95 participants with confirmed COVID-19. An independent data safety monitoring board, which was appointed by the National Institutes of Health, informed Moderna that 90 of the patients who were positive for COVID-19 were in a placebo group and that 5 patients were in the mRNA-1273 vaccine group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (P < .0001).

Interim data included 11 patients with severe COVID-19, all of whom were in the placebo group.

“This positive interim analysis from our phase 3 study has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.

The vaccine met its primary study endpoint, which was based on adjudicated data that were collected starting 2 weeks after the second dose of mRNA-1273. The interim study population included people who could be at higher risk for COVID-19, including 15 adults aged 65 years and older and 20 participants from diverse communities.
 

Safety data

The DSMB also reviewed safety data for the COVE study interim results. The vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated, as determined on the basis of solicited adverse events. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were generally short-lived, according to a company news release.

Injection-site pain was reported in 2.7% of participants after the first dose. After the second dose, 9.7% of participants reported fatigue, 8.9% reported myalgia, 5.2% reported arthralgia, 4.5% reported headache, 4.1% reported pain, and 2.0% reported erythema or redness at the injection site.

Moderna plans to request emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks. The company expects that the EUA will be based on more data from the COVE study, including a final analysis of 151 patients with a median follow-up of more than 2 months. Moderna also plans to seek authorizations from global regulatory agencies.

The company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 ready to ship in the United States by the end of the year. In addition, the company says it remains on track to manufacture between 500 million and 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

Moderna is developing distribution plans in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, and McKesson, a COVID-19 vaccine distributor contracted by the U.S. government.
 

Refrigeration requirements

The mRNA-1273 vaccine can be shipped and stored for up to 6 months at –20° C (about –4° F), a temperature maintained in most home or medical freezers, according to Moderna. The company expects that, after the product thaws, it will remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2°-8° C (36°-46° F) for up to 30 days within the 6-month shelf life.

Because the mRNA-1273 vaccine is stable at these refrigerator temperatures, it can be stored at most physicians’ offices, pharmacies, and hospitals, the company noted. In contrast, the similar Pfizer BTN162b2 vaccine – early results for which showed a 90% efficacy rate – requires shipment and storage at “deep-freeze” conditions of –70° C or –80° C, which is more challenging from a logistic point of view.

Moderna’s mRNA-1273 can be kept at room temperature for up to 12 hours after removal from a refrigerator for patient administration. The vaccine will not require dilution prior to use.

More than 30,000 people aged older than 18 years in the United States are enrolled in the COVE study. The research is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health & Human Services.

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

Seeing patients with vulvar problems via telemedicine can lead to efficient and successful care, but there are challenges and limitations with this approach, doctors are finding.

Image quality is one key factor that determines whether a clinician can assess and manage a condition remotely, said Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif. Other issues may be especially relevant to televulvology, including privacy concerns.

“Who is helping with the positioning? Who is the photographer? Is the patient comfortable with having photos taken of this part of their body and submitted, even if they know it is submitted securely? Because they might not be,” Dr. Venkatesan said in a lecture at a virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

When quality photographs from referring providers are available, Dr. Venkatesan has conducted virtual new consultations. “But sometimes I will do a virtual telemedicine visit as the first visit and then figure out, okay, this isn’t really sufficient. I need to see them in person.”

Melissa Mauskar, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, described a case early on during the COVID-19 pandemic that illustrates a limitation of virtual visits.

A patient sent in a photograph that appeared to show lichen sclerosus. “There looked like some classic lichen sclerosus changes,” Dr. Mauskar said during a discussion at the meeting. “But she was having a lot of pain, and after a week, her pain still was not better.”

Dr. Mauskar brought the patient into the office and ultimately diagnosed a squamous cell carcinoma. “What I thought was a normal erosion was actually an ulcerated plaque,” she said.

Like Dr. Venkatesan, Dr. Mauskar has found that image quality can be uneven. Photographs may be out of focus. Video visits have been a mixed bag. Some are successful. Other times, Dr. Mauskar has to tell the patient she needs to see her in the office.

Certain clinical scenarios require a vaginal exam, Dr. Venkatesan noted. Although some type of assessment may be possible if a patient is with a primary care provider during the telemedicine visit, the examination may not be equivalent. Doctors also should anticipate where a patient might go to have a biopsy if one is necessary.

Another telemedicine caveat pertains to patient counseling. When using store-and-forward telemedicine systems, advising patients in a written report can be challenging. “Is there an easy way ... to counsel patients how to apply their topical medications?” Dr. Venkatesan said.
 

Excellent care is possible

Vulvology is a small part of Dr. Venkatesan’s general dermatology practice, which has used telemedicine extensively since the pandemic.

In recent years, Dr. Venkatesan’s clinic began encouraging providers in their health system to submit photographs with referrals. “That has really paid off now because we have been able to help provide a lot of excellent quality care for patients without them having to come in,” she said. “We may be able to say: ‘These are excellent photos. We know what this patient has. We can manage it. They don’t need to come see us in person.’ ” That could be the case for certain types of acne, eczema, and psoriasis.

In other cases, they may be able to provide initial advice remotely but still want to see the patient. For a patient with severe acne, “I may be able to tell the referring doctor: ‘Please start the patient on these three medicines. It will take 2 months for those medicines to start working and then we will plan to have an in-person dermatology visit.’ ” In this case, telemedicine essentially replaces one in-person visit.

If photographs are poor, the differential diagnosis is broad, a procedure is required, the doctor needs to touch the lesion, or more involved history taking or counseling are required, the patient may need to go into the office.

Beyond its public health advantages during a pandemic, telemedicine can improve access for patients who live far away, lack transportation, or are unable to take time off from work. It also can decrease patient wait times. “Once we started doing some telemedicine work … we went from having a 5-month wait time for patients to see us in person to a 72-hour wait time for providing some care for patients if they had good photos as part of their referral,” Dr. Venkatesan said.

Telemedicine has been used in inpatient and outpatient dermatology settings. Primary care providers who consult with dermatologists using a store-and-forward telemedicine system may improve their dermatology knowledge and feel more confident in their ability to diagnose and manage dermatologic conditions, research indicates.

In obstetrics and gynecology, telemedicine may play a role in preconception, contraception, and medical abortion care, prenatal visits, well-woman exams, mental health, and pre- and postoperative counseling, a recent review suggests.
 

Image quality is key

“Quality of the image is so critical for being able to provide good care, especially in such a visual exam field as dermatology,” Dr. Venkatesan said.

To that end, doctors have offered recommendations on how to photograph skin conditions. A guide shared by the mobile telehealth system company ClickMedix suggests focusing on the area of importance, capturing the extent of involvement, and including involved and uninvolved areas.

Good lighting and checking the image resolution can help, Dr. Venkatesan offered. Nevertheless, patients may have difficulty photographing themselves. If a patient is with their primary care doctor, “we are much more likely to be able to get good quality photos,” she said.

Dr. Venkatesan is a paid consultant for DirectDerm, a store-and-forward teledermatology company. Dr. Mauskar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Seeing patients with vulvar problems via telemedicine can lead to efficient and successful care, but there are challenges and limitations with this approach, doctors are finding.

Image quality is one key factor that determines whether a clinician can assess and manage a condition remotely, said Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif. Other issues may be especially relevant to televulvology, including privacy concerns.

“Who is helping with the positioning? Who is the photographer? Is the patient comfortable with having photos taken of this part of their body and submitted, even if they know it is submitted securely? Because they might not be,” Dr. Venkatesan said in a lecture at a virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

When quality photographs from referring providers are available, Dr. Venkatesan has conducted virtual new consultations. “But sometimes I will do a virtual telemedicine visit as the first visit and then figure out, okay, this isn’t really sufficient. I need to see them in person.”

Melissa Mauskar, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, described a case early on during the COVID-19 pandemic that illustrates a limitation of virtual visits.

A patient sent in a photograph that appeared to show lichen sclerosus. “There looked like some classic lichen sclerosus changes,” Dr. Mauskar said during a discussion at the meeting. “But she was having a lot of pain, and after a week, her pain still was not better.”

Dr. Mauskar brought the patient into the office and ultimately diagnosed a squamous cell carcinoma. “What I thought was a normal erosion was actually an ulcerated plaque,” she said.

Like Dr. Venkatesan, Dr. Mauskar has found that image quality can be uneven. Photographs may be out of focus. Video visits have been a mixed bag. Some are successful. Other times, Dr. Mauskar has to tell the patient she needs to see her in the office.

Certain clinical scenarios require a vaginal exam, Dr. Venkatesan noted. Although some type of assessment may be possible if a patient is with a primary care provider during the telemedicine visit, the examination may not be equivalent. Doctors also should anticipate where a patient might go to have a biopsy if one is necessary.

Another telemedicine caveat pertains to patient counseling. When using store-and-forward telemedicine systems, advising patients in a written report can be challenging. “Is there an easy way ... to counsel patients how to apply their topical medications?” Dr. Venkatesan said.
 

Excellent care is possible

Vulvology is a small part of Dr. Venkatesan’s general dermatology practice, which has used telemedicine extensively since the pandemic.

In recent years, Dr. Venkatesan’s clinic began encouraging providers in their health system to submit photographs with referrals. “That has really paid off now because we have been able to help provide a lot of excellent quality care for patients without them having to come in,” she said. “We may be able to say: ‘These are excellent photos. We know what this patient has. We can manage it. They don’t need to come see us in person.’ ” That could be the case for certain types of acne, eczema, and psoriasis.

In other cases, they may be able to provide initial advice remotely but still want to see the patient. For a patient with severe acne, “I may be able to tell the referring doctor: ‘Please start the patient on these three medicines. It will take 2 months for those medicines to start working and then we will plan to have an in-person dermatology visit.’ ” In this case, telemedicine essentially replaces one in-person visit.

If photographs are poor, the differential diagnosis is broad, a procedure is required, the doctor needs to touch the lesion, or more involved history taking or counseling are required, the patient may need to go into the office.

Beyond its public health advantages during a pandemic, telemedicine can improve access for patients who live far away, lack transportation, or are unable to take time off from work. It also can decrease patient wait times. “Once we started doing some telemedicine work … we went from having a 5-month wait time for patients to see us in person to a 72-hour wait time for providing some care for patients if they had good photos as part of their referral,” Dr. Venkatesan said.

Telemedicine has been used in inpatient and outpatient dermatology settings. Primary care providers who consult with dermatologists using a store-and-forward telemedicine system may improve their dermatology knowledge and feel more confident in their ability to diagnose and manage dermatologic conditions, research indicates.

In obstetrics and gynecology, telemedicine may play a role in preconception, contraception, and medical abortion care, prenatal visits, well-woman exams, mental health, and pre- and postoperative counseling, a recent review suggests.
 

Image quality is key

“Quality of the image is so critical for being able to provide good care, especially in such a visual exam field as dermatology,” Dr. Venkatesan said.

To that end, doctors have offered recommendations on how to photograph skin conditions. A guide shared by the mobile telehealth system company ClickMedix suggests focusing on the area of importance, capturing the extent of involvement, and including involved and uninvolved areas.

Good lighting and checking the image resolution can help, Dr. Venkatesan offered. Nevertheless, patients may have difficulty photographing themselves. If a patient is with their primary care doctor, “we are much more likely to be able to get good quality photos,” she said.

Dr. Venkatesan is a paid consultant for DirectDerm, a store-and-forward teledermatology company. Dr. Mauskar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Seeing patients with vulvar problems via telemedicine can lead to efficient and successful care, but there are challenges and limitations with this approach, doctors are finding.

Image quality is one key factor that determines whether a clinician can assess and manage a condition remotely, said Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif. Other issues may be especially relevant to televulvology, including privacy concerns.

“Who is helping with the positioning? Who is the photographer? Is the patient comfortable with having photos taken of this part of their body and submitted, even if they know it is submitted securely? Because they might not be,” Dr. Venkatesan said in a lecture at a virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

When quality photographs from referring providers are available, Dr. Venkatesan has conducted virtual new consultations. “But sometimes I will do a virtual telemedicine visit as the first visit and then figure out, okay, this isn’t really sufficient. I need to see them in person.”

Melissa Mauskar, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, described a case early on during the COVID-19 pandemic that illustrates a limitation of virtual visits.

A patient sent in a photograph that appeared to show lichen sclerosus. “There looked like some classic lichen sclerosus changes,” Dr. Mauskar said during a discussion at the meeting. “But she was having a lot of pain, and after a week, her pain still was not better.”

Dr. Mauskar brought the patient into the office and ultimately diagnosed a squamous cell carcinoma. “What I thought was a normal erosion was actually an ulcerated plaque,” she said.

Like Dr. Venkatesan, Dr. Mauskar has found that image quality can be uneven. Photographs may be out of focus. Video visits have been a mixed bag. Some are successful. Other times, Dr. Mauskar has to tell the patient she needs to see her in the office.

Certain clinical scenarios require a vaginal exam, Dr. Venkatesan noted. Although some type of assessment may be possible if a patient is with a primary care provider during the telemedicine visit, the examination may not be equivalent. Doctors also should anticipate where a patient might go to have a biopsy if one is necessary.

Another telemedicine caveat pertains to patient counseling. When using store-and-forward telemedicine systems, advising patients in a written report can be challenging. “Is there an easy way ... to counsel patients how to apply their topical medications?” Dr. Venkatesan said.
 

Excellent care is possible

Vulvology is a small part of Dr. Venkatesan’s general dermatology practice, which has used telemedicine extensively since the pandemic.

In recent years, Dr. Venkatesan’s clinic began encouraging providers in their health system to submit photographs with referrals. “That has really paid off now because we have been able to help provide a lot of excellent quality care for patients without them having to come in,” she said. “We may be able to say: ‘These are excellent photos. We know what this patient has. We can manage it. They don’t need to come see us in person.’ ” That could be the case for certain types of acne, eczema, and psoriasis.

In other cases, they may be able to provide initial advice remotely but still want to see the patient. For a patient with severe acne, “I may be able to tell the referring doctor: ‘Please start the patient on these three medicines. It will take 2 months for those medicines to start working and then we will plan to have an in-person dermatology visit.’ ” In this case, telemedicine essentially replaces one in-person visit.

If photographs are poor, the differential diagnosis is broad, a procedure is required, the doctor needs to touch the lesion, or more involved history taking or counseling are required, the patient may need to go into the office.

Beyond its public health advantages during a pandemic, telemedicine can improve access for patients who live far away, lack transportation, or are unable to take time off from work. It also can decrease patient wait times. “Once we started doing some telemedicine work … we went from having a 5-month wait time for patients to see us in person to a 72-hour wait time for providing some care for patients if they had good photos as part of their referral,” Dr. Venkatesan said.

Telemedicine has been used in inpatient and outpatient dermatology settings. Primary care providers who consult with dermatologists using a store-and-forward telemedicine system may improve their dermatology knowledge and feel more confident in their ability to diagnose and manage dermatologic conditions, research indicates.

In obstetrics and gynecology, telemedicine may play a role in preconception, contraception, and medical abortion care, prenatal visits, well-woman exams, mental health, and pre- and postoperative counseling, a recent review suggests.
 

Image quality is key

“Quality of the image is so critical for being able to provide good care, especially in such a visual exam field as dermatology,” Dr. Venkatesan said.

To that end, doctors have offered recommendations on how to photograph skin conditions. A guide shared by the mobile telehealth system company ClickMedix suggests focusing on the area of importance, capturing the extent of involvement, and including involved and uninvolved areas.

Good lighting and checking the image resolution can help, Dr. Venkatesan offered. Nevertheless, patients may have difficulty photographing themselves. If a patient is with their primary care doctor, “we are much more likely to be able to get good quality photos,” she said.

Dr. Venkatesan is a paid consultant for DirectDerm, a store-and-forward teledermatology company. Dr. Mauskar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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