Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Just weeks after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) published its updated acne management guidelines, a dermatologist who helped write the recommendations provided colleagues with insight into recently approved topical therapies, the importance of multimodal therapy, and a controversial report linking benzoyl peroxide (BP) to the carcinogen benzene.

In regard to topical treatments, the guidelines make a “strong” recommendation for topical retinoids based on “moderate” evidence, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommendation was based on a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials that found patients with acne who used the medications were more likely to have improvement via the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale at 12 weeks than were those treated with a vehicle (risk ratio [RR], 1.57; 1.21-2.04).

The updated guidelines were published on January 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The previous guidelines were issued in 2016.

“We have four current retinoids that we use: adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “Typically, when we think about retinoids, we think of adapalene as being more tolerable and tazarotene as being more effective. But we also know that they can work to prevent and treat scarring, and they work against comedonal lesions and inflammatory lesions.”

Newer concentrations include tretinoin 0.05% lotion, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, and trifarotene 0.005% cream. She noted that this trifarotene concentration can be helpful for moderate truncal acne and also referred to evidence that whey protein appears to exacerbate that condition. “I always ask teenage kids about that: Are they using those protein powders?”
 

Recommendations for ‘Multimodal Therapy,’ Especially With Antibiotics

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a “good practice statement” in the new guidelines that says, “when managing acne with topical medications, we recommend multimodal therapy combining multiple mechanisms of action.”

Topical antibiotics are effective treatments on their own and include erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline (Minocin), she said. But the guidelines, which refer to evidence supporting them as “moderate,” do not recommend them as monotherapy because of the risk for antibiotic resistance.

The oral retinoid isotretinoin may be appropriate in conjunction with topical medications, she said, “and we also recommend fixed combination products because they’re associated with increased adherence.”

Dermatologists are familiar with several of these products because “we’ve been using them for years and years,” she said. The guidelines note that “compared to vehicle at 12 weeks, a greater proportion of patients treated with combined BP and topical retinoid achieved IGA success in three RCTs (RR, 2.19; 1.77-2.72).”

Dr. Zaenglein noted that the guidelines recommend that patients taking antibiotics also use benzoyl peroxide, which has “moderate” evidence regarding preventing the development of antibiotic resistance. “Lower strengths tend to be less irritating, and over-the-counter formulations are readily available,” she said, adding that colleagues should make sure to warn patients about the risk of bleaching clothes and towels with BP.

Now, there’s a newly approved treatment, the first fixed-dose triple combination therapy for acne, she said. It combines 1.2% clindamycin, 3.1% benzoyl peroxide, and 0.15% adapalene (Cabtreo) and is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for treating acne in patients ages 12 and up.

The new AAD guidelines note that “potential adverse effect profiles of the fixed-dose combinations generally reflect those of the individual agents in summation. Some fixed-dose combination products may be less expensive than prescribing their individual components separately.” The evidence supporting fixed-dose combinations in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide is considered “moderate.”

Dapsone gel, 7.5% (Aczone) is another option for acne. “It’s a topical so you don’t need to do G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s well tolerated, and mean total lesions fell by 48.9% vs 43.2% for vehicle,” in a 2018 study, which she said also found that females benefited more than males from this treatment.

Clascoterone 1% cream (Winlevi), approved in 2020, is appropriate for males and females aged 12 and up, Dr. Zaenglein said. She noted that it’s the only topical anti-androgen that can be used in males. However, while it has a “high” level of evidence because of phase 3 clinical trials showing benefits in moderate to severe acne, the AAD guidelines only conditionally recommend this option because the high price of clascoterone “may impact equitable acne treatment access.” The price listed on the website GoodRx (accessed on March 12) lists drugstore prices for a single 60-gram tube as ranging from $590 to $671.

“One of the harder things is trying to figure out where clascoterone fits in our kind of standard combination therapy,” she said. “Much like other hormonal therapies, it works better over the long term.”

Two more topical options per the AAD guidelines are salicylic acid, based on one randomized controlled trial, and azelaic acid (Azelex, Finacea), based on three randomized controlled trials. Both of these recommendations are conditional because of limited evidence: Evidence is considered “low” for salicylic acid and “moderate” for azelaic acid, the guidelines say, and azelaic acid “may be particularly helpful for patients with sensitive skin or darker skin types due to its lightening effect on dyspigmentation.”

As for risk for topical treatments during pregnancy/lactation, the guidelines note that topical therapies other than topical retinoids are “preferred” during pregnancy. Tazarotene is contraindicated during pregnancy, and salicylic acid should be used only in limited areas of exposure. There are no data for dapsone and clascoterone during pregnancy/lactation, and minocycline is “not recommended.”

The guideline authors noted that “available evidence is insufficient to develop a recommendation on the use of topical glycolic acid, sulfur, sodium sulfacetamide, and resorcinol for acne treatment or to make recommendations that compare topical BP, retinoids, antibiotics, and their combinations directly against each other.”
 

Could BP Post a Risk From Benzene?

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a recently released report by Valisure, an independent laboratory, which reported finding high levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in several acne treatments, including brands such as Clearasil. “They didn’t release all of the ones that they evaluated, but there were a lot ... that we commonly recommend for our patients,” she said.

On March 6, CBS News reported that Valisure “ran tests at various temperatures over 18 days and found some products ‘can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of two parts per million (ppm) for benzene’ in 2 weeks at 50° C (122° F),” but that benzene levels “at room temperature were more modest, ranging from about one to 24 parts per million.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she’s not ready to urge patients to discontinue BP, although in light of the findings, “I will tell them to store it at room temperature or lower.”

For now, it’s important to wait for independent verification of the results, she said. “And then it’s up to the manufacturers to reevaluate the stability of their benzoyl peroxide products with heat.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biofrontera, Galderma, and Incyte (grants/research funding), Church & Dwight (consulting fees), and UCB (consulting honoraria).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just weeks after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) published its updated acne management guidelines, a dermatologist who helped write the recommendations provided colleagues with insight into recently approved topical therapies, the importance of multimodal therapy, and a controversial report linking benzoyl peroxide (BP) to the carcinogen benzene.

In regard to topical treatments, the guidelines make a “strong” recommendation for topical retinoids based on “moderate” evidence, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommendation was based on a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials that found patients with acne who used the medications were more likely to have improvement via the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale at 12 weeks than were those treated with a vehicle (risk ratio [RR], 1.57; 1.21-2.04).

The updated guidelines were published on January 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The previous guidelines were issued in 2016.

“We have four current retinoids that we use: adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “Typically, when we think about retinoids, we think of adapalene as being more tolerable and tazarotene as being more effective. But we also know that they can work to prevent and treat scarring, and they work against comedonal lesions and inflammatory lesions.”

Newer concentrations include tretinoin 0.05% lotion, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, and trifarotene 0.005% cream. She noted that this trifarotene concentration can be helpful for moderate truncal acne and also referred to evidence that whey protein appears to exacerbate that condition. “I always ask teenage kids about that: Are they using those protein powders?”
 

Recommendations for ‘Multimodal Therapy,’ Especially With Antibiotics

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a “good practice statement” in the new guidelines that says, “when managing acne with topical medications, we recommend multimodal therapy combining multiple mechanisms of action.”

Topical antibiotics are effective treatments on their own and include erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline (Minocin), she said. But the guidelines, which refer to evidence supporting them as “moderate,” do not recommend them as monotherapy because of the risk for antibiotic resistance.

The oral retinoid isotretinoin may be appropriate in conjunction with topical medications, she said, “and we also recommend fixed combination products because they’re associated with increased adherence.”

Dermatologists are familiar with several of these products because “we’ve been using them for years and years,” she said. The guidelines note that “compared to vehicle at 12 weeks, a greater proportion of patients treated with combined BP and topical retinoid achieved IGA success in three RCTs (RR, 2.19; 1.77-2.72).”

Dr. Zaenglein noted that the guidelines recommend that patients taking antibiotics also use benzoyl peroxide, which has “moderate” evidence regarding preventing the development of antibiotic resistance. “Lower strengths tend to be less irritating, and over-the-counter formulations are readily available,” she said, adding that colleagues should make sure to warn patients about the risk of bleaching clothes and towels with BP.

Now, there’s a newly approved treatment, the first fixed-dose triple combination therapy for acne, she said. It combines 1.2% clindamycin, 3.1% benzoyl peroxide, and 0.15% adapalene (Cabtreo) and is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for treating acne in patients ages 12 and up.

The new AAD guidelines note that “potential adverse effect profiles of the fixed-dose combinations generally reflect those of the individual agents in summation. Some fixed-dose combination products may be less expensive than prescribing their individual components separately.” The evidence supporting fixed-dose combinations in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide is considered “moderate.”

Dapsone gel, 7.5% (Aczone) is another option for acne. “It’s a topical so you don’t need to do G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s well tolerated, and mean total lesions fell by 48.9% vs 43.2% for vehicle,” in a 2018 study, which she said also found that females benefited more than males from this treatment.

Clascoterone 1% cream (Winlevi), approved in 2020, is appropriate for males and females aged 12 and up, Dr. Zaenglein said. She noted that it’s the only topical anti-androgen that can be used in males. However, while it has a “high” level of evidence because of phase 3 clinical trials showing benefits in moderate to severe acne, the AAD guidelines only conditionally recommend this option because the high price of clascoterone “may impact equitable acne treatment access.” The price listed on the website GoodRx (accessed on March 12) lists drugstore prices for a single 60-gram tube as ranging from $590 to $671.

“One of the harder things is trying to figure out where clascoterone fits in our kind of standard combination therapy,” she said. “Much like other hormonal therapies, it works better over the long term.”

Two more topical options per the AAD guidelines are salicylic acid, based on one randomized controlled trial, and azelaic acid (Azelex, Finacea), based on three randomized controlled trials. Both of these recommendations are conditional because of limited evidence: Evidence is considered “low” for salicylic acid and “moderate” for azelaic acid, the guidelines say, and azelaic acid “may be particularly helpful for patients with sensitive skin or darker skin types due to its lightening effect on dyspigmentation.”

As for risk for topical treatments during pregnancy/lactation, the guidelines note that topical therapies other than topical retinoids are “preferred” during pregnancy. Tazarotene is contraindicated during pregnancy, and salicylic acid should be used only in limited areas of exposure. There are no data for dapsone and clascoterone during pregnancy/lactation, and minocycline is “not recommended.”

The guideline authors noted that “available evidence is insufficient to develop a recommendation on the use of topical glycolic acid, sulfur, sodium sulfacetamide, and resorcinol for acne treatment or to make recommendations that compare topical BP, retinoids, antibiotics, and their combinations directly against each other.”
 

Could BP Post a Risk From Benzene?

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a recently released report by Valisure, an independent laboratory, which reported finding high levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in several acne treatments, including brands such as Clearasil. “They didn’t release all of the ones that they evaluated, but there were a lot ... that we commonly recommend for our patients,” she said.

On March 6, CBS News reported that Valisure “ran tests at various temperatures over 18 days and found some products ‘can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of two parts per million (ppm) for benzene’ in 2 weeks at 50° C (122° F),” but that benzene levels “at room temperature were more modest, ranging from about one to 24 parts per million.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she’s not ready to urge patients to discontinue BP, although in light of the findings, “I will tell them to store it at room temperature or lower.”

For now, it’s important to wait for independent verification of the results, she said. “And then it’s up to the manufacturers to reevaluate the stability of their benzoyl peroxide products with heat.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biofrontera, Galderma, and Incyte (grants/research funding), Church & Dwight (consulting fees), and UCB (consulting honoraria).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just weeks after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) published its updated acne management guidelines, a dermatologist who helped write the recommendations provided colleagues with insight into recently approved topical therapies, the importance of multimodal therapy, and a controversial report linking benzoyl peroxide (BP) to the carcinogen benzene.

In regard to topical treatments, the guidelines make a “strong” recommendation for topical retinoids based on “moderate” evidence, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommendation was based on a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials that found patients with acne who used the medications were more likely to have improvement via the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale at 12 weeks than were those treated with a vehicle (risk ratio [RR], 1.57; 1.21-2.04).

The updated guidelines were published on January 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The previous guidelines were issued in 2016.

“We have four current retinoids that we use: adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “Typically, when we think about retinoids, we think of adapalene as being more tolerable and tazarotene as being more effective. But we also know that they can work to prevent and treat scarring, and they work against comedonal lesions and inflammatory lesions.”

Newer concentrations include tretinoin 0.05% lotion, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, and trifarotene 0.005% cream. She noted that this trifarotene concentration can be helpful for moderate truncal acne and also referred to evidence that whey protein appears to exacerbate that condition. “I always ask teenage kids about that: Are they using those protein powders?”
 

Recommendations for ‘Multimodal Therapy,’ Especially With Antibiotics

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a “good practice statement” in the new guidelines that says, “when managing acne with topical medications, we recommend multimodal therapy combining multiple mechanisms of action.”

Topical antibiotics are effective treatments on their own and include erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline (Minocin), she said. But the guidelines, which refer to evidence supporting them as “moderate,” do not recommend them as monotherapy because of the risk for antibiotic resistance.

The oral retinoid isotretinoin may be appropriate in conjunction with topical medications, she said, “and we also recommend fixed combination products because they’re associated with increased adherence.”

Dermatologists are familiar with several of these products because “we’ve been using them for years and years,” she said. The guidelines note that “compared to vehicle at 12 weeks, a greater proportion of patients treated with combined BP and topical retinoid achieved IGA success in three RCTs (RR, 2.19; 1.77-2.72).”

Dr. Zaenglein noted that the guidelines recommend that patients taking antibiotics also use benzoyl peroxide, which has “moderate” evidence regarding preventing the development of antibiotic resistance. “Lower strengths tend to be less irritating, and over-the-counter formulations are readily available,” she said, adding that colleagues should make sure to warn patients about the risk of bleaching clothes and towels with BP.

Now, there’s a newly approved treatment, the first fixed-dose triple combination therapy for acne, she said. It combines 1.2% clindamycin, 3.1% benzoyl peroxide, and 0.15% adapalene (Cabtreo) and is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for treating acne in patients ages 12 and up.

The new AAD guidelines note that “potential adverse effect profiles of the fixed-dose combinations generally reflect those of the individual agents in summation. Some fixed-dose combination products may be less expensive than prescribing their individual components separately.” The evidence supporting fixed-dose combinations in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide is considered “moderate.”

Dapsone gel, 7.5% (Aczone) is another option for acne. “It’s a topical so you don’t need to do G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s well tolerated, and mean total lesions fell by 48.9% vs 43.2% for vehicle,” in a 2018 study, which she said also found that females benefited more than males from this treatment.

Clascoterone 1% cream (Winlevi), approved in 2020, is appropriate for males and females aged 12 and up, Dr. Zaenglein said. She noted that it’s the only topical anti-androgen that can be used in males. However, while it has a “high” level of evidence because of phase 3 clinical trials showing benefits in moderate to severe acne, the AAD guidelines only conditionally recommend this option because the high price of clascoterone “may impact equitable acne treatment access.” The price listed on the website GoodRx (accessed on March 12) lists drugstore prices for a single 60-gram tube as ranging from $590 to $671.

“One of the harder things is trying to figure out where clascoterone fits in our kind of standard combination therapy,” she said. “Much like other hormonal therapies, it works better over the long term.”

Two more topical options per the AAD guidelines are salicylic acid, based on one randomized controlled trial, and azelaic acid (Azelex, Finacea), based on three randomized controlled trials. Both of these recommendations are conditional because of limited evidence: Evidence is considered “low” for salicylic acid and “moderate” for azelaic acid, the guidelines say, and azelaic acid “may be particularly helpful for patients with sensitive skin or darker skin types due to its lightening effect on dyspigmentation.”

As for risk for topical treatments during pregnancy/lactation, the guidelines note that topical therapies other than topical retinoids are “preferred” during pregnancy. Tazarotene is contraindicated during pregnancy, and salicylic acid should be used only in limited areas of exposure. There are no data for dapsone and clascoterone during pregnancy/lactation, and minocycline is “not recommended.”

The guideline authors noted that “available evidence is insufficient to develop a recommendation on the use of topical glycolic acid, sulfur, sodium sulfacetamide, and resorcinol for acne treatment or to make recommendations that compare topical BP, retinoids, antibiotics, and their combinations directly against each other.”
 

Could BP Post a Risk From Benzene?

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a recently released report by Valisure, an independent laboratory, which reported finding high levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in several acne treatments, including brands such as Clearasil. “They didn’t release all of the ones that they evaluated, but there were a lot ... that we commonly recommend for our patients,” she said.

On March 6, CBS News reported that Valisure “ran tests at various temperatures over 18 days and found some products ‘can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of two parts per million (ppm) for benzene’ in 2 weeks at 50° C (122° F),” but that benzene levels “at room temperature were more modest, ranging from about one to 24 parts per million.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she’s not ready to urge patients to discontinue BP, although in light of the findings, “I will tell them to store it at room temperature or lower.”

For now, it’s important to wait for independent verification of the results, she said. “And then it’s up to the manufacturers to reevaluate the stability of their benzoyl peroxide products with heat.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biofrontera, Galderma, and Incyte (grants/research funding), Church & Dwight (consulting fees), and UCB (consulting honoraria).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide improved metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) among people living with HIV, and in some cases resolved it completely, according to results from the SLIM LIVER study presented by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver.

Furthermore, although muscle volume decreased with weight loss, participants did not experience significant changes in muscle quality or physical function.
 

‘A First’

SLIM LIVER is the first study evaluating semaglutide as a treatment of MASLD among people living with HIV.

The phase 2b, single-arm pilot study enrolled adults living with HIV who were virally suppressed and had central adiposity, insulin resistance or prediabetes, and steatotic liver disease.

Participants self-injected semaglutide weekly at increasing doses until they reached a 1-mg dose at week 4. At 24 weeks, the study team assessed changes in participants’ intra-hepatic triglyceride content using magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction.

The primary analysis results from SLIM LIVER were reported in an oral presentation, “Semaglutide Reduces Metabolic-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in People With HIV: The SLIM LIVER Study,” on March 5 by Jordan E. Lake, MD, MSc, of UTHealth Houston.

A subgroup analysis of the study was provided in a poster, “Effects of Semaglutide on Muscle Structure and Function in the SLIM LIVER Study,” presented on March 4 by Grace L. Ditzenberger, PT, DPT, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In the primary analysis, the median age of the 49 participants was 52 years, 43% were women (cisgender and transgender), the mean body mass index was 35, 39% were Hispanic and 33% were Black/African American, and 82% were taking antiretroviral therapy that included an integrase inhibitor.

Liver fat was reduced by an average of 31%, with 29% of participants experiencing a complete resolution (5% or less liver fat) of MASLD. They also experienced weight loss, reduced fasting blood glucose, and reduced fasting triglycerides, consistent with effects observed in studies of semaglutide in people without HIV.

The sub-analysis of the 46 participants for whom muscle measurements were available showed that muscle volume (measured in the psoas) decreased but with no significant change in physical function.

Semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that seen in individuals without HIV.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (ie, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain). Two participants experienced more significant adverse events possibly related to semaglutide but were able to continue in the study.

All participants completed the full 24 weeks of therapy at the originally prescribed dose.
 

Potential Impact

“Even at the low dose of 1 mg every week, most participants lost significant weight, and weight loss was closely associated with improvements in MASLD,” Dr. Lake said. “Additional research will assess the secondary effects of semaglutide on systemic inflammation and metabolism and determine whether semaglutide may have unique risks or benefits for people living with HIV.”

“These findings have the potential to have a significant impact on the health and quality of life of people living with HIV,” added ACTG Chair Judith Currier, MD, MSc, University of California Los Angeles.

The SLIM LIVER study was sponsored by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), with additional funding from UTHealth Houston McGovern School of Medicine. ACTG is a clinical trials network focused on HIV and other infectious diseases, funded by NIAID and collaborating institutes of the US National Institutes of Health.

No conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide improved metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) among people living with HIV, and in some cases resolved it completely, according to results from the SLIM LIVER study presented by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver.

Furthermore, although muscle volume decreased with weight loss, participants did not experience significant changes in muscle quality or physical function.
 

‘A First’

SLIM LIVER is the first study evaluating semaglutide as a treatment of MASLD among people living with HIV.

The phase 2b, single-arm pilot study enrolled adults living with HIV who were virally suppressed and had central adiposity, insulin resistance or prediabetes, and steatotic liver disease.

Participants self-injected semaglutide weekly at increasing doses until they reached a 1-mg dose at week 4. At 24 weeks, the study team assessed changes in participants’ intra-hepatic triglyceride content using magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction.

The primary analysis results from SLIM LIVER were reported in an oral presentation, “Semaglutide Reduces Metabolic-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in People With HIV: The SLIM LIVER Study,” on March 5 by Jordan E. Lake, MD, MSc, of UTHealth Houston.

A subgroup analysis of the study was provided in a poster, “Effects of Semaglutide on Muscle Structure and Function in the SLIM LIVER Study,” presented on March 4 by Grace L. Ditzenberger, PT, DPT, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In the primary analysis, the median age of the 49 participants was 52 years, 43% were women (cisgender and transgender), the mean body mass index was 35, 39% were Hispanic and 33% were Black/African American, and 82% were taking antiretroviral therapy that included an integrase inhibitor.

Liver fat was reduced by an average of 31%, with 29% of participants experiencing a complete resolution (5% or less liver fat) of MASLD. They also experienced weight loss, reduced fasting blood glucose, and reduced fasting triglycerides, consistent with effects observed in studies of semaglutide in people without HIV.

The sub-analysis of the 46 participants for whom muscle measurements were available showed that muscle volume (measured in the psoas) decreased but with no significant change in physical function.

Semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that seen in individuals without HIV.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (ie, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain). Two participants experienced more significant adverse events possibly related to semaglutide but were able to continue in the study.

All participants completed the full 24 weeks of therapy at the originally prescribed dose.
 

Potential Impact

“Even at the low dose of 1 mg every week, most participants lost significant weight, and weight loss was closely associated with improvements in MASLD,” Dr. Lake said. “Additional research will assess the secondary effects of semaglutide on systemic inflammation and metabolism and determine whether semaglutide may have unique risks or benefits for people living with HIV.”

“These findings have the potential to have a significant impact on the health and quality of life of people living with HIV,” added ACTG Chair Judith Currier, MD, MSc, University of California Los Angeles.

The SLIM LIVER study was sponsored by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), with additional funding from UTHealth Houston McGovern School of Medicine. ACTG is a clinical trials network focused on HIV and other infectious diseases, funded by NIAID and collaborating institutes of the US National Institutes of Health.

No conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide improved metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) among people living with HIV, and in some cases resolved it completely, according to results from the SLIM LIVER study presented by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver.

Furthermore, although muscle volume decreased with weight loss, participants did not experience significant changes in muscle quality or physical function.
 

‘A First’

SLIM LIVER is the first study evaluating semaglutide as a treatment of MASLD among people living with HIV.

The phase 2b, single-arm pilot study enrolled adults living with HIV who were virally suppressed and had central adiposity, insulin resistance or prediabetes, and steatotic liver disease.

Participants self-injected semaglutide weekly at increasing doses until they reached a 1-mg dose at week 4. At 24 weeks, the study team assessed changes in participants’ intra-hepatic triglyceride content using magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction.

The primary analysis results from SLIM LIVER were reported in an oral presentation, “Semaglutide Reduces Metabolic-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in People With HIV: The SLIM LIVER Study,” on March 5 by Jordan E. Lake, MD, MSc, of UTHealth Houston.

A subgroup analysis of the study was provided in a poster, “Effects of Semaglutide on Muscle Structure and Function in the SLIM LIVER Study,” presented on March 4 by Grace L. Ditzenberger, PT, DPT, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In the primary analysis, the median age of the 49 participants was 52 years, 43% were women (cisgender and transgender), the mean body mass index was 35, 39% were Hispanic and 33% were Black/African American, and 82% were taking antiretroviral therapy that included an integrase inhibitor.

Liver fat was reduced by an average of 31%, with 29% of participants experiencing a complete resolution (5% or less liver fat) of MASLD. They also experienced weight loss, reduced fasting blood glucose, and reduced fasting triglycerides, consistent with effects observed in studies of semaglutide in people without HIV.

The sub-analysis of the 46 participants for whom muscle measurements were available showed that muscle volume (measured in the psoas) decreased but with no significant change in physical function.

Semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that seen in individuals without HIV.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (ie, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain). Two participants experienced more significant adverse events possibly related to semaglutide but were able to continue in the study.

All participants completed the full 24 weeks of therapy at the originally prescribed dose.
 

Potential Impact

“Even at the low dose of 1 mg every week, most participants lost significant weight, and weight loss was closely associated with improvements in MASLD,” Dr. Lake said. “Additional research will assess the secondary effects of semaglutide on systemic inflammation and metabolism and determine whether semaglutide may have unique risks or benefits for people living with HIV.”

“These findings have the potential to have a significant impact on the health and quality of life of people living with HIV,” added ACTG Chair Judith Currier, MD, MSc, University of California Los Angeles.

The SLIM LIVER study was sponsored by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), with additional funding from UTHealth Houston McGovern School of Medicine. ACTG is a clinical trials network focused on HIV and other infectious diseases, funded by NIAID and collaborating institutes of the US National Institutes of Health.

No conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A multicomponent strategy of nurse-led communication, home blood pressure monitoring, evidence-based treatment algorithms, and electronic health record tools improved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and non–high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol levels in people living with HIV.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators assessed if EXTRA-CVD, a nurse-led multicomponent intervention for preventing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), could effectively improve SBP and non-HDL cholesterol levels in people living with HIV whose viral replication has been controlled effectively using antiretroviral therapy.
• They recruited 297 individuals (median age, 59 years; 20.9% women) from three academic HIV clinics in the United States with an HIV-1 viral load < 200 copies/mL who were diagnosed with both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either the EXTRA-CVD intervention group or a control group comprising individuals who received general prevention education.
• SBP (the primary outcome) was calculated as the mean of two SBP measurements obtained 1 minute apart, and non-HDL cholesterol (the secondary outcome) was calculated as total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the intervention vs control group reported having significantly lower SBP as early as 4 months after the nurse-led strategy (mean difference, −6.4 mm Hg; P = .002), with the improvements sustaining until 12 months (mean difference, −4.2 mm Hg; P = .04).
• At 12 months, participants in the intervention group showed a 16.9-mg/dL (P < .001) reduction in non-HDL cholesterol levels compared with those in the control group.
• The nurse-led strategy led to a greater reduction in SBP in women with HIV vs men living with HIV (5.9 mm Hg greater SBP difference at 12 months), with the difference being clinically meaningful but not statistically significant.
• This nurse-led strategy did not increase the risk for adverse events in people living with HIV.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the EXTRA-CVD intervention was limited to BP and cholesterol, nurse-led case management might be beneficial for a range of other primary care conditions in HIV clinics. If HIV clinics choose to implement EXTRA-CVD, they might consider adding staff trained in other chronic comorbidities and/or health promotion activities,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Christopher T. Longenecker, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and published online on March 5, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this trial was conducted at well-resourced, major academic HIV clinics, the results may not be applicable to other populations, such as smaller community-based clinics or HIV care outside the United States. The sensitivity analyses performed in this study may not have fully accounted for the bias introduced by the differential attrition in the intervention group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors declared receiving grants and personal fees from or having other ties with the NIH and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A multicomponent strategy of nurse-led communication, home blood pressure monitoring, evidence-based treatment algorithms, and electronic health record tools improved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and non–high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol levels in people living with HIV.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators assessed if EXTRA-CVD, a nurse-led multicomponent intervention for preventing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), could effectively improve SBP and non-HDL cholesterol levels in people living with HIV whose viral replication has been controlled effectively using antiretroviral therapy.
• They recruited 297 individuals (median age, 59 years; 20.9% women) from three academic HIV clinics in the United States with an HIV-1 viral load < 200 copies/mL who were diagnosed with both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either the EXTRA-CVD intervention group or a control group comprising individuals who received general prevention education.
• SBP (the primary outcome) was calculated as the mean of two SBP measurements obtained 1 minute apart, and non-HDL cholesterol (the secondary outcome) was calculated as total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the intervention vs control group reported having significantly lower SBP as early as 4 months after the nurse-led strategy (mean difference, −6.4 mm Hg; P = .002), with the improvements sustaining until 12 months (mean difference, −4.2 mm Hg; P = .04).
• At 12 months, participants in the intervention group showed a 16.9-mg/dL (P < .001) reduction in non-HDL cholesterol levels compared with those in the control group.
• The nurse-led strategy led to a greater reduction in SBP in women with HIV vs men living with HIV (5.9 mm Hg greater SBP difference at 12 months), with the difference being clinically meaningful but not statistically significant.
• This nurse-led strategy did not increase the risk for adverse events in people living with HIV.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the EXTRA-CVD intervention was limited to BP and cholesterol, nurse-led case management might be beneficial for a range of other primary care conditions in HIV clinics. If HIV clinics choose to implement EXTRA-CVD, they might consider adding staff trained in other chronic comorbidities and/or health promotion activities,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Christopher T. Longenecker, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and published online on March 5, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this trial was conducted at well-resourced, major academic HIV clinics, the results may not be applicable to other populations, such as smaller community-based clinics or HIV care outside the United States. The sensitivity analyses performed in this study may not have fully accounted for the bias introduced by the differential attrition in the intervention group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors declared receiving grants and personal fees from or having other ties with the NIH and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A multicomponent strategy of nurse-led communication, home blood pressure monitoring, evidence-based treatment algorithms, and electronic health record tools improved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and non–high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol levels in people living with HIV.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators assessed if EXTRA-CVD, a nurse-led multicomponent intervention for preventing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), could effectively improve SBP and non-HDL cholesterol levels in people living with HIV whose viral replication has been controlled effectively using antiretroviral therapy.
• They recruited 297 individuals (median age, 59 years; 20.9% women) from three academic HIV clinics in the United States with an HIV-1 viral load < 200 copies/mL who were diagnosed with both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either the EXTRA-CVD intervention group or a control group comprising individuals who received general prevention education.
• SBP (the primary outcome) was calculated as the mean of two SBP measurements obtained 1 minute apart, and non-HDL cholesterol (the secondary outcome) was calculated as total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the intervention vs control group reported having significantly lower SBP as early as 4 months after the nurse-led strategy (mean difference, −6.4 mm Hg; P = .002), with the improvements sustaining until 12 months (mean difference, −4.2 mm Hg; P = .04).
• At 12 months, participants in the intervention group showed a 16.9-mg/dL (P < .001) reduction in non-HDL cholesterol levels compared with those in the control group.
• The nurse-led strategy led to a greater reduction in SBP in women with HIV vs men living with HIV (5.9 mm Hg greater SBP difference at 12 months), with the difference being clinically meaningful but not statistically significant.
• This nurse-led strategy did not increase the risk for adverse events in people living with HIV.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the EXTRA-CVD intervention was limited to BP and cholesterol, nurse-led case management might be beneficial for a range of other primary care conditions in HIV clinics. If HIV clinics choose to implement EXTRA-CVD, they might consider adding staff trained in other chronic comorbidities and/or health promotion activities,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Christopher T. Longenecker, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and published online on March 5, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this trial was conducted at well-resourced, major academic HIV clinics, the results may not be applicable to other populations, such as smaller community-based clinics or HIV care outside the United States. The sensitivity analyses performed in this study may not have fully accounted for the bias introduced by the differential attrition in the intervention group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors declared receiving grants and personal fees from or having other ties with the NIH and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Brian Rini. I’m an Ingram Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m going to talk to you briefly today about some major highlights in renal cancer from the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Symposium that was just held. I think there’s three main areas: adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, frontline therapy in advanced disease, and the refractory space.

To open with adjuvant therapy, the biggest news in kidney cancer, and probably all of GU cancer at ASCO GU this year, was the adjuvant pembrolizumab overall survival data. This KEYNOTE study had previously shown disease-free survival advantages over placebo in a population with high-risk resected kidney cancer. There was a trend toward overall survival, but it was not significant in those early analyses.

Now with nearly 5 years of follow-up, we see an overall survival advantage, with a hazard ratio in the 0.6 range — so, about a 40% reduction in the risk for death among these patients receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembro). This was really important for the field. It’s been difficult to show a survival advantage, even in diseases like melanoma, which is considered at least as much, if not more immune responsive, and I think puts into perspective whether to offer this drug to high-risk resected patients. And it certainly needs to be considered for this population.

I think the balance on that — and this came out in some of the questions after the session — was around how many of the placebo recipients got salvage immune therapy, which would be a standard of care. But in the countries where this was done, it’s not really clear how many actually got therapy. We know most patients got some salvage therapy, be it local or systemic, and about half the patients got immune therapy. But some more granular detail would be necessary.

The other thing I would mention is that this was paired with the previous presentation, which was adjuvant nivolumab. It was a very similar study, a similar drug in a similar setting, but it did not show any advantages of either disease-free or overall survival. This comes on the heels of other negative studies and a negative ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) study in this setting, part of the same study.

The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. There’s differences in populations and duration of therapy and mechanism, and all sorts of things. I don’t think anybody’s really been able to come up with one reason why we have some negative immune trials in kidney cancer and one shiningly positive one. But be that as it may, I think the take-home was that adjuvant pembro is certainly a standard of care in high-risk disease, and a benefit/risk discussion needs to be had with each individual patient. And I think pembro will be the building block for future studies, some of which are ongoing.

The second major area of update was in frontline kidney cancer. There weren’t a lot of new data, but there were updates to the existing trials. As you may know, frontline immune-based doublet is a standard of care in this disease: either ipi/nivo or one of the immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) regimens. We had two updates. One was an 8-year update on ipi/nivo. It’s a really long follow-up for these patients now, and what was observed was that these results remain remarkably consistent.

The hazard ratios for benefit in terms of survival and durability of response are really consistent over the past several years — again, a hallmark of immune therapy. Over half the responders are still responding now, many years later. I think that only strengthens the position of ipi/nivo as a choice for advanced clear cell kidney cancer patients. Again, there are good long-term toxicity data, and some patients can remain off treatment in what’s called treatment-free survival. So, an important update. We look forward to future, probably 10-year, data.

The CheckMate 9ER cabozantinib/nivolumab (cabo/nivo) study was updated now with many years of follow-up, as some of the other IO/TKI regimens have as well. And I think there is a similar theme, although a few years behind in maturity from the ipi/nivo data. It shows persistence of benefit. With IO/TKI regimens, a lot of the benefit is up front. It’s high response rates. It’s progression-free survival (PFS). But we’re starting to see some of that durability.

Where it’ll land, if there will be a tail of the curve and where it will be, is unclear, but these updates are important in terms of counseling patients. Patients want to know not just what’s going to happen at their first scan but also years from now. And they’re planning to be around years from now. So, I think these data are important.

The last thing I’ll mention is a health-related quality-of-life update from what was called the 005 trial of belzutifan, an oral HIF inhibitor, compared with everolimus. We heard data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023 on a PFS and response-rate advantage. The drug was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late December, and now we see some quality-of-life data.

Quality-of-life questionnaires and scales have a lot of imperfections. I don’t think they necessarily capture everything we want. But in this case, it was fairly clean in that belzutifan is known to be a well-tolerated agent. The toxicity profile is clean. It’s been used for years in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, certainly in the trials for years, and has shown good tolerance over time. So, I view these data as complementary to what we already knew about the drug, but they’re nice to see.

It’s nice to see datasets come together and show the same thing: Not only is the drug active in a refractory renal cell carcinoma (RCC) setting, but also it’s really well tolerated and does not adversely impact patients› quality of life. I use this drug a lot in refractory kidney cancer, and because it’s so well tolerated. That means it’s also combinable. And there are some very large studies in the front-end second-line space combining it, in a space where people believe that it has more activity. But there are some complementary data as we wait for the overall survival signal, hopefully, from this regimen.

So, there have been some exciting updates, mostly in the adjuvant space but also in some other spaces in kidney cancer and building upon some of the clinical advances that we had seen from previous meetings. I’m Brian Rini, and I appreciate you attending.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Brian Rini. I’m an Ingram Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m going to talk to you briefly today about some major highlights in renal cancer from the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Symposium that was just held. I think there’s three main areas: adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, frontline therapy in advanced disease, and the refractory space.

To open with adjuvant therapy, the biggest news in kidney cancer, and probably all of GU cancer at ASCO GU this year, was the adjuvant pembrolizumab overall survival data. This KEYNOTE study had previously shown disease-free survival advantages over placebo in a population with high-risk resected kidney cancer. There was a trend toward overall survival, but it was not significant in those early analyses.

Now with nearly 5 years of follow-up, we see an overall survival advantage, with a hazard ratio in the 0.6 range — so, about a 40% reduction in the risk for death among these patients receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembro). This was really important for the field. It’s been difficult to show a survival advantage, even in diseases like melanoma, which is considered at least as much, if not more immune responsive, and I think puts into perspective whether to offer this drug to high-risk resected patients. And it certainly needs to be considered for this population.

I think the balance on that — and this came out in some of the questions after the session — was around how many of the placebo recipients got salvage immune therapy, which would be a standard of care. But in the countries where this was done, it’s not really clear how many actually got therapy. We know most patients got some salvage therapy, be it local or systemic, and about half the patients got immune therapy. But some more granular detail would be necessary.

The other thing I would mention is that this was paired with the previous presentation, which was adjuvant nivolumab. It was a very similar study, a similar drug in a similar setting, but it did not show any advantages of either disease-free or overall survival. This comes on the heels of other negative studies and a negative ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) study in this setting, part of the same study.

The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. There’s differences in populations and duration of therapy and mechanism, and all sorts of things. I don’t think anybody’s really been able to come up with one reason why we have some negative immune trials in kidney cancer and one shiningly positive one. But be that as it may, I think the take-home was that adjuvant pembro is certainly a standard of care in high-risk disease, and a benefit/risk discussion needs to be had with each individual patient. And I think pembro will be the building block for future studies, some of which are ongoing.

The second major area of update was in frontline kidney cancer. There weren’t a lot of new data, but there were updates to the existing trials. As you may know, frontline immune-based doublet is a standard of care in this disease: either ipi/nivo or one of the immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) regimens. We had two updates. One was an 8-year update on ipi/nivo. It’s a really long follow-up for these patients now, and what was observed was that these results remain remarkably consistent.

The hazard ratios for benefit in terms of survival and durability of response are really consistent over the past several years — again, a hallmark of immune therapy. Over half the responders are still responding now, many years later. I think that only strengthens the position of ipi/nivo as a choice for advanced clear cell kidney cancer patients. Again, there are good long-term toxicity data, and some patients can remain off treatment in what’s called treatment-free survival. So, an important update. We look forward to future, probably 10-year, data.

The CheckMate 9ER cabozantinib/nivolumab (cabo/nivo) study was updated now with many years of follow-up, as some of the other IO/TKI regimens have as well. And I think there is a similar theme, although a few years behind in maturity from the ipi/nivo data. It shows persistence of benefit. With IO/TKI regimens, a lot of the benefit is up front. It’s high response rates. It’s progression-free survival (PFS). But we’re starting to see some of that durability.

Where it’ll land, if there will be a tail of the curve and where it will be, is unclear, but these updates are important in terms of counseling patients. Patients want to know not just what’s going to happen at their first scan but also years from now. And they’re planning to be around years from now. So, I think these data are important.

The last thing I’ll mention is a health-related quality-of-life update from what was called the 005 trial of belzutifan, an oral HIF inhibitor, compared with everolimus. We heard data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023 on a PFS and response-rate advantage. The drug was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late December, and now we see some quality-of-life data.

Quality-of-life questionnaires and scales have a lot of imperfections. I don’t think they necessarily capture everything we want. But in this case, it was fairly clean in that belzutifan is known to be a well-tolerated agent. The toxicity profile is clean. It’s been used for years in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, certainly in the trials for years, and has shown good tolerance over time. So, I view these data as complementary to what we already knew about the drug, but they’re nice to see.

It’s nice to see datasets come together and show the same thing: Not only is the drug active in a refractory renal cell carcinoma (RCC) setting, but also it’s really well tolerated and does not adversely impact patients› quality of life. I use this drug a lot in refractory kidney cancer, and because it’s so well tolerated. That means it’s also combinable. And there are some very large studies in the front-end second-line space combining it, in a space where people believe that it has more activity. But there are some complementary data as we wait for the overall survival signal, hopefully, from this regimen.

So, there have been some exciting updates, mostly in the adjuvant space but also in some other spaces in kidney cancer and building upon some of the clinical advances that we had seen from previous meetings. I’m Brian Rini, and I appreciate you attending.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Brian Rini. I’m an Ingram Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m going to talk to you briefly today about some major highlights in renal cancer from the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Symposium that was just held. I think there’s three main areas: adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, frontline therapy in advanced disease, and the refractory space.

To open with adjuvant therapy, the biggest news in kidney cancer, and probably all of GU cancer at ASCO GU this year, was the adjuvant pembrolizumab overall survival data. This KEYNOTE study had previously shown disease-free survival advantages over placebo in a population with high-risk resected kidney cancer. There was a trend toward overall survival, but it was not significant in those early analyses.

Now with nearly 5 years of follow-up, we see an overall survival advantage, with a hazard ratio in the 0.6 range — so, about a 40% reduction in the risk for death among these patients receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembro). This was really important for the field. It’s been difficult to show a survival advantage, even in diseases like melanoma, which is considered at least as much, if not more immune responsive, and I think puts into perspective whether to offer this drug to high-risk resected patients. And it certainly needs to be considered for this population.

I think the balance on that — and this came out in some of the questions after the session — was around how many of the placebo recipients got salvage immune therapy, which would be a standard of care. But in the countries where this was done, it’s not really clear how many actually got therapy. We know most patients got some salvage therapy, be it local or systemic, and about half the patients got immune therapy. But some more granular detail would be necessary.

The other thing I would mention is that this was paired with the previous presentation, which was adjuvant nivolumab. It was a very similar study, a similar drug in a similar setting, but it did not show any advantages of either disease-free or overall survival. This comes on the heels of other negative studies and a negative ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) study in this setting, part of the same study.

The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. There’s differences in populations and duration of therapy and mechanism, and all sorts of things. I don’t think anybody’s really been able to come up with one reason why we have some negative immune trials in kidney cancer and one shiningly positive one. But be that as it may, I think the take-home was that adjuvant pembro is certainly a standard of care in high-risk disease, and a benefit/risk discussion needs to be had with each individual patient. And I think pembro will be the building block for future studies, some of which are ongoing.

The second major area of update was in frontline kidney cancer. There weren’t a lot of new data, but there were updates to the existing trials. As you may know, frontline immune-based doublet is a standard of care in this disease: either ipi/nivo or one of the immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) regimens. We had two updates. One was an 8-year update on ipi/nivo. It’s a really long follow-up for these patients now, and what was observed was that these results remain remarkably consistent.

The hazard ratios for benefit in terms of survival and durability of response are really consistent over the past several years — again, a hallmark of immune therapy. Over half the responders are still responding now, many years later. I think that only strengthens the position of ipi/nivo as a choice for advanced clear cell kidney cancer patients. Again, there are good long-term toxicity data, and some patients can remain off treatment in what’s called treatment-free survival. So, an important update. We look forward to future, probably 10-year, data.

The CheckMate 9ER cabozantinib/nivolumab (cabo/nivo) study was updated now with many years of follow-up, as some of the other IO/TKI regimens have as well. And I think there is a similar theme, although a few years behind in maturity from the ipi/nivo data. It shows persistence of benefit. With IO/TKI regimens, a lot of the benefit is up front. It’s high response rates. It’s progression-free survival (PFS). But we’re starting to see some of that durability.

Where it’ll land, if there will be a tail of the curve and where it will be, is unclear, but these updates are important in terms of counseling patients. Patients want to know not just what’s going to happen at their first scan but also years from now. And they’re planning to be around years from now. So, I think these data are important.

The last thing I’ll mention is a health-related quality-of-life update from what was called the 005 trial of belzutifan, an oral HIF inhibitor, compared with everolimus. We heard data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023 on a PFS and response-rate advantage. The drug was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late December, and now we see some quality-of-life data.

Quality-of-life questionnaires and scales have a lot of imperfections. I don’t think they necessarily capture everything we want. But in this case, it was fairly clean in that belzutifan is known to be a well-tolerated agent. The toxicity profile is clean. It’s been used for years in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, certainly in the trials for years, and has shown good tolerance over time. So, I view these data as complementary to what we already knew about the drug, but they’re nice to see.

It’s nice to see datasets come together and show the same thing: Not only is the drug active in a refractory renal cell carcinoma (RCC) setting, but also it’s really well tolerated and does not adversely impact patients› quality of life. I use this drug a lot in refractory kidney cancer, and because it’s so well tolerated. That means it’s also combinable. And there are some very large studies in the front-end second-line space combining it, in a space where people believe that it has more activity. But there are some complementary data as we wait for the overall survival signal, hopefully, from this regimen.

So, there have been some exciting updates, mostly in the adjuvant space but also in some other spaces in kidney cancer and building upon some of the clinical advances that we had seen from previous meetings. I’m Brian Rini, and I appreciate you attending.

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

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody drug batoclimab significantly improved symptoms in patients with antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis, data from a new phase 3 study showed.

After 6 weeks of treatment, patients reported nearly 60% sustained improvement in daily activities and a rapid onset of action from batoclimab, a neonatal crystallizable fragment receptor (FcRn) antagonist.

The clinical effects and the extent of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction in this study were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, two other FcRn antagonists, the investigators noted, adding that larger studies are needed to better understand the safety profile of batoclimab.

“While most generalized myasthenia gravis patients can achieve good disease control through conventional immunotherapy, there are still unmet needs with this disease,” said study investigator Chongbo Zhao, MD, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Huashan Rare Disease Centre, Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Unmet Need

A rare chronic disease, myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction, most commonly against the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). This can cause a variety of symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, chewing, and talking, as well as severe, sometimes life-threatening, muscle weakness.

The estimated global prevalence of myasthenia gravis is 15-25 per 100,000, with cases doubling in the past 20 years.

Treatment for myasthenia gravis typically includes immune-suppressing drugs. But research suggests almost half of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis don’t achieve an adequate response or are intolerant to these treatments, and some therapies are costly or not readily accessible.

“Our treatment goal has evolved from saving patients to improving their quality of life, so we still need to explore safer and more effective novel treatment methods,” Dr. Zhao said.

Batoclimab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG antibody that binds to FcRn and accelerates clearance of harmful IgG. A phase 2 trial provided preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of this agent in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

The current double-blind phase 3 trial included 132 adult patients (mean age, 44 years; 67% female) of Chinese Han ethnicity with generalized myasthenia gravis at 27 centers in China. Participants had a mean Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 8.4 at baseline, and all but one was positive for AChR or muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) antibodies.

The treatment group received weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab at 680 mg for 6 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of observation. The control group received a placebo with the same treatment and follow-up schedule.

All patients received standard of care in addition to the assigned treatment, but changes in dosage and/or dosing frequency were not permitted. Patients received a second cycle if they still required treatment.
 

Bests Placebo

Overall, 90% of participants completed all six doses in cycle 1. The second treatment cycle was conducted in 115 patients, with 88% completing all six doses.

Patients were evaluated at baseline and then weekly for MG-ADL, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and the 15-item revised version of the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life.

Sustained MG-ADL improvement — the primary outcome — was significantly higher in the batoclimab group compared with placebo (58% vs 31%, respectively; odds ratio, 3.45; P = .001).

While the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement with batoclimab was lower than that reported for efgartigimod (68%) in a previous trial, that was primarily because of the more stringent definition of sustained MG-ADL improvement (three-point reduction vs two-point reduction from baseline), investigators said.

In the current trial, batoclimab had a rapid onset of action, with scores diverging between the treatment and placebo groups as early as the second week of therapy.

In the second treatment cycle, batoclimab once again outperformed placebo in sustained MG-ADL improvement (63% vs 36%, respectively; P = .002).

Batoclimab also bested placebo on secondary outcomes, including sustained QMG improvement (64% vs 41%; P = .008) and percent of patients achieving minimal symptom expression (25% vs 5%; P = .004).

Results of all subgroup analyses, including by age groups, sex, body weight, body mass index, and MG Foundation of America clinical classification, were consistent with those of the main analysis. The efficacy of batoclimab was also supported by all sensitivity analyses, underscoring the robustness of results.

Batoclimab led to a rapid and sustained reduction in serum AChR antibody levels, with a median reduction of 81% at week 6.
 

Well Tolerated

On discontinuation of batoclimab, serum total IgG returned to a level comparable with the baseline after 4 weeks. Reversibility of the drug’s effect is important considering the risk for infection from prolonged immune suppression, the authors noted.

The rate of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the treatment than in the placebo groups (39% vs 5%), but all cases were mild or moderate and deemed not clinically significant. The treatment group also had higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections (36% vs 22%) and of urinary tract infections (19% vs 15%).

“Although the incidence of upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections was higher in the batoclimab group numerically, these were mild infections that did not require special treatment, so this is not a concern,” said Dr. Zhao.

Plasma albumin levels in the batoclimab group decreased significantly throughout the treatment cycle, starting at week 1 and reaching a decline of up to 31% at week 6. These levels increased rapidly toward baseline after treatment discontinuation.

High cholesterol levels were noted in the batoclimab group, plateauing by week 6. But levels returned to near baseline levels within 4 weeks after the final dose, and there were no serious related adverse reactions.

The rate of headache was slightly higher in the treatment group (6% vs 5% for placebo). “This finding may seem minor but could potentially translate into improved adherence in daily practice settings,” the authors wrote.

In previous studies, the efficacy of FcRn inhibitors in the Asian population was only examined in subgroup analyses with limited subjects. Finding an effective FcRn antagonist for China and surrounding regions is particularly important “considering the high mortality rate in hospitalized generalized myasthenia gravis patients in China,” the researchers noted.

The trial included only two treatment cycles, although results of an open-label extension trial examining longer-term efficacy of batoclimab should be available by the end of this year, said Dr. Zhao.

The trial was also not designed to investigate long-term safety, particularly infections and cardiovascular events. Only one study subject was negative for AChR or MuSK antibodies, which prevented researchers from assessing the drug’s efficacy in this subpopulation.
 

Questions Remain

Commenting on the study, Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden , said that recent studies of the two other FcRn antagonists were short-term and had limited long-term data. “We don’t know how valuable they may be for continued treatment,” Dr. Piehl said.

It’s also unclear how this new treatment modality compares with existing and emerging drug strategies in terms of the long-term benefit-risk balance, he added.

The rate of adverse events with batoclimab was high compared with placebo in this study and higher than in earlier studies of efgartigimod, Dr. Piehl noted.

“In this study, almost twice as many reported adverse events in the active arm compared with controls, while these differences tended to be smaller in previously reported trials,” he said.

The trial was funded by Nona Biosciences (Suzhou). Dr. Zhao reported being a full-time employee of Nona Biosciences (Suzhou), a subsidiary of Harbour BioMed Inc. He also reported receiving advisory board/consultant fees from Nona Biosciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zailab outside the submitted work. Dr. Piehl has received research grants from Janssen, Merck KGaA, and UCB; and fees for serving on DMC in clinical trials with Chugai, Lundbeck, and Roche; and preparation of expert witness statement for Novartis.

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

Treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody drug batoclimab significantly improved symptoms in patients with antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis, data from a new phase 3 study showed.

After 6 weeks of treatment, patients reported nearly 60% sustained improvement in daily activities and a rapid onset of action from batoclimab, a neonatal crystallizable fragment receptor (FcRn) antagonist.

The clinical effects and the extent of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction in this study were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, two other FcRn antagonists, the investigators noted, adding that larger studies are needed to better understand the safety profile of batoclimab.

“While most generalized myasthenia gravis patients can achieve good disease control through conventional immunotherapy, there are still unmet needs with this disease,” said study investigator Chongbo Zhao, MD, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Huashan Rare Disease Centre, Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Unmet Need

A rare chronic disease, myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction, most commonly against the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). This can cause a variety of symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, chewing, and talking, as well as severe, sometimes life-threatening, muscle weakness.

The estimated global prevalence of myasthenia gravis is 15-25 per 100,000, with cases doubling in the past 20 years.

Treatment for myasthenia gravis typically includes immune-suppressing drugs. But research suggests almost half of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis don’t achieve an adequate response or are intolerant to these treatments, and some therapies are costly or not readily accessible.

“Our treatment goal has evolved from saving patients to improving their quality of life, so we still need to explore safer and more effective novel treatment methods,” Dr. Zhao said.

Batoclimab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG antibody that binds to FcRn and accelerates clearance of harmful IgG. A phase 2 trial provided preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of this agent in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

The current double-blind phase 3 trial included 132 adult patients (mean age, 44 years; 67% female) of Chinese Han ethnicity with generalized myasthenia gravis at 27 centers in China. Participants had a mean Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 8.4 at baseline, and all but one was positive for AChR or muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) antibodies.

The treatment group received weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab at 680 mg for 6 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of observation. The control group received a placebo with the same treatment and follow-up schedule.

All patients received standard of care in addition to the assigned treatment, but changes in dosage and/or dosing frequency were not permitted. Patients received a second cycle if they still required treatment.
 

Bests Placebo

Overall, 90% of participants completed all six doses in cycle 1. The second treatment cycle was conducted in 115 patients, with 88% completing all six doses.

Patients were evaluated at baseline and then weekly for MG-ADL, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and the 15-item revised version of the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life.

Sustained MG-ADL improvement — the primary outcome — was significantly higher in the batoclimab group compared with placebo (58% vs 31%, respectively; odds ratio, 3.45; P = .001).

While the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement with batoclimab was lower than that reported for efgartigimod (68%) in a previous trial, that was primarily because of the more stringent definition of sustained MG-ADL improvement (three-point reduction vs two-point reduction from baseline), investigators said.

In the current trial, batoclimab had a rapid onset of action, with scores diverging between the treatment and placebo groups as early as the second week of therapy.

In the second treatment cycle, batoclimab once again outperformed placebo in sustained MG-ADL improvement (63% vs 36%, respectively; P = .002).

Batoclimab also bested placebo on secondary outcomes, including sustained QMG improvement (64% vs 41%; P = .008) and percent of patients achieving minimal symptom expression (25% vs 5%; P = .004).

Results of all subgroup analyses, including by age groups, sex, body weight, body mass index, and MG Foundation of America clinical classification, were consistent with those of the main analysis. The efficacy of batoclimab was also supported by all sensitivity analyses, underscoring the robustness of results.

Batoclimab led to a rapid and sustained reduction in serum AChR antibody levels, with a median reduction of 81% at week 6.
 

Well Tolerated

On discontinuation of batoclimab, serum total IgG returned to a level comparable with the baseline after 4 weeks. Reversibility of the drug’s effect is important considering the risk for infection from prolonged immune suppression, the authors noted.

The rate of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the treatment than in the placebo groups (39% vs 5%), but all cases were mild or moderate and deemed not clinically significant. The treatment group also had higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections (36% vs 22%) and of urinary tract infections (19% vs 15%).

“Although the incidence of upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections was higher in the batoclimab group numerically, these were mild infections that did not require special treatment, so this is not a concern,” said Dr. Zhao.

Plasma albumin levels in the batoclimab group decreased significantly throughout the treatment cycle, starting at week 1 and reaching a decline of up to 31% at week 6. These levels increased rapidly toward baseline after treatment discontinuation.

High cholesterol levels were noted in the batoclimab group, plateauing by week 6. But levels returned to near baseline levels within 4 weeks after the final dose, and there were no serious related adverse reactions.

The rate of headache was slightly higher in the treatment group (6% vs 5% for placebo). “This finding may seem minor but could potentially translate into improved adherence in daily practice settings,” the authors wrote.

In previous studies, the efficacy of FcRn inhibitors in the Asian population was only examined in subgroup analyses with limited subjects. Finding an effective FcRn antagonist for China and surrounding regions is particularly important “considering the high mortality rate in hospitalized generalized myasthenia gravis patients in China,” the researchers noted.

The trial included only two treatment cycles, although results of an open-label extension trial examining longer-term efficacy of batoclimab should be available by the end of this year, said Dr. Zhao.

The trial was also not designed to investigate long-term safety, particularly infections and cardiovascular events. Only one study subject was negative for AChR or MuSK antibodies, which prevented researchers from assessing the drug’s efficacy in this subpopulation.
 

Questions Remain

Commenting on the study, Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden , said that recent studies of the two other FcRn antagonists were short-term and had limited long-term data. “We don’t know how valuable they may be for continued treatment,” Dr. Piehl said.

It’s also unclear how this new treatment modality compares with existing and emerging drug strategies in terms of the long-term benefit-risk balance, he added.

The rate of adverse events with batoclimab was high compared with placebo in this study and higher than in earlier studies of efgartigimod, Dr. Piehl noted.

“In this study, almost twice as many reported adverse events in the active arm compared with controls, while these differences tended to be smaller in previously reported trials,” he said.

The trial was funded by Nona Biosciences (Suzhou). Dr. Zhao reported being a full-time employee of Nona Biosciences (Suzhou), a subsidiary of Harbour BioMed Inc. He also reported receiving advisory board/consultant fees from Nona Biosciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zailab outside the submitted work. Dr. Piehl has received research grants from Janssen, Merck KGaA, and UCB; and fees for serving on DMC in clinical trials with Chugai, Lundbeck, and Roche; and preparation of expert witness statement for Novartis.

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

Treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody drug batoclimab significantly improved symptoms in patients with antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis, data from a new phase 3 study showed.

After 6 weeks of treatment, patients reported nearly 60% sustained improvement in daily activities and a rapid onset of action from batoclimab, a neonatal crystallizable fragment receptor (FcRn) antagonist.

The clinical effects and the extent of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction in this study were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, two other FcRn antagonists, the investigators noted, adding that larger studies are needed to better understand the safety profile of batoclimab.

“While most generalized myasthenia gravis patients can achieve good disease control through conventional immunotherapy, there are still unmet needs with this disease,” said study investigator Chongbo Zhao, MD, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Huashan Rare Disease Centre, Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Unmet Need

A rare chronic disease, myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction, most commonly against the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). This can cause a variety of symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, chewing, and talking, as well as severe, sometimes life-threatening, muscle weakness.

The estimated global prevalence of myasthenia gravis is 15-25 per 100,000, with cases doubling in the past 20 years.

Treatment for myasthenia gravis typically includes immune-suppressing drugs. But research suggests almost half of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis don’t achieve an adequate response or are intolerant to these treatments, and some therapies are costly or not readily accessible.

“Our treatment goal has evolved from saving patients to improving their quality of life, so we still need to explore safer and more effective novel treatment methods,” Dr. Zhao said.

Batoclimab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG antibody that binds to FcRn and accelerates clearance of harmful IgG. A phase 2 trial provided preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of this agent in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

The current double-blind phase 3 trial included 132 adult patients (mean age, 44 years; 67% female) of Chinese Han ethnicity with generalized myasthenia gravis at 27 centers in China. Participants had a mean Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 8.4 at baseline, and all but one was positive for AChR or muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) antibodies.

The treatment group received weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab at 680 mg for 6 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of observation. The control group received a placebo with the same treatment and follow-up schedule.

All patients received standard of care in addition to the assigned treatment, but changes in dosage and/or dosing frequency were not permitted. Patients received a second cycle if they still required treatment.
 

Bests Placebo

Overall, 90% of participants completed all six doses in cycle 1. The second treatment cycle was conducted in 115 patients, with 88% completing all six doses.

Patients were evaluated at baseline and then weekly for MG-ADL, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and the 15-item revised version of the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life.

Sustained MG-ADL improvement — the primary outcome — was significantly higher in the batoclimab group compared with placebo (58% vs 31%, respectively; odds ratio, 3.45; P = .001).

While the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement with batoclimab was lower than that reported for efgartigimod (68%) in a previous trial, that was primarily because of the more stringent definition of sustained MG-ADL improvement (three-point reduction vs two-point reduction from baseline), investigators said.

In the current trial, batoclimab had a rapid onset of action, with scores diverging between the treatment and placebo groups as early as the second week of therapy.

In the second treatment cycle, batoclimab once again outperformed placebo in sustained MG-ADL improvement (63% vs 36%, respectively; P = .002).

Batoclimab also bested placebo on secondary outcomes, including sustained QMG improvement (64% vs 41%; P = .008) and percent of patients achieving minimal symptom expression (25% vs 5%; P = .004).

Results of all subgroup analyses, including by age groups, sex, body weight, body mass index, and MG Foundation of America clinical classification, were consistent with those of the main analysis. The efficacy of batoclimab was also supported by all sensitivity analyses, underscoring the robustness of results.

Batoclimab led to a rapid and sustained reduction in serum AChR antibody levels, with a median reduction of 81% at week 6.
 

Well Tolerated

On discontinuation of batoclimab, serum total IgG returned to a level comparable with the baseline after 4 weeks. Reversibility of the drug’s effect is important considering the risk for infection from prolonged immune suppression, the authors noted.

The rate of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the treatment than in the placebo groups (39% vs 5%), but all cases were mild or moderate and deemed not clinically significant. The treatment group also had higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections (36% vs 22%) and of urinary tract infections (19% vs 15%).

“Although the incidence of upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections was higher in the batoclimab group numerically, these were mild infections that did not require special treatment, so this is not a concern,” said Dr. Zhao.

Plasma albumin levels in the batoclimab group decreased significantly throughout the treatment cycle, starting at week 1 and reaching a decline of up to 31% at week 6. These levels increased rapidly toward baseline after treatment discontinuation.

High cholesterol levels were noted in the batoclimab group, plateauing by week 6. But levels returned to near baseline levels within 4 weeks after the final dose, and there were no serious related adverse reactions.

The rate of headache was slightly higher in the treatment group (6% vs 5% for placebo). “This finding may seem minor but could potentially translate into improved adherence in daily practice settings,” the authors wrote.

In previous studies, the efficacy of FcRn inhibitors in the Asian population was only examined in subgroup analyses with limited subjects. Finding an effective FcRn antagonist for China and surrounding regions is particularly important “considering the high mortality rate in hospitalized generalized myasthenia gravis patients in China,” the researchers noted.

The trial included only two treatment cycles, although results of an open-label extension trial examining longer-term efficacy of batoclimab should be available by the end of this year, said Dr. Zhao.

The trial was also not designed to investigate long-term safety, particularly infections and cardiovascular events. Only one study subject was negative for AChR or MuSK antibodies, which prevented researchers from assessing the drug’s efficacy in this subpopulation.
 

Questions Remain

Commenting on the study, Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden , said that recent studies of the two other FcRn antagonists were short-term and had limited long-term data. “We don’t know how valuable they may be for continued treatment,” Dr. Piehl said.

It’s also unclear how this new treatment modality compares with existing and emerging drug strategies in terms of the long-term benefit-risk balance, he added.

The rate of adverse events with batoclimab was high compared with placebo in this study and higher than in earlier studies of efgartigimod, Dr. Piehl noted.

“In this study, almost twice as many reported adverse events in the active arm compared with controls, while these differences tended to be smaller in previously reported trials,” he said.

The trial was funded by Nona Biosciences (Suzhou). Dr. Zhao reported being a full-time employee of Nona Biosciences (Suzhou), a subsidiary of Harbour BioMed Inc. He also reported receiving advisory board/consultant fees from Nona Biosciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zailab outside the submitted work. Dr. Piehl has received research grants from Janssen, Merck KGaA, and UCB; and fees for serving on DMC in clinical trials with Chugai, Lundbeck, and Roche; and preparation of expert witness statement for Novartis.

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