User login
Expert spotlights telltale clinical signs of xeroderma pigmentosum
AUSTIN, TEX. – If a child presents with acute (XP), a rare autosomal recessive disorder.
Other telltale symptoms of XP include the presence of skin cancer at an early age and a large number of skin cancers.
At the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, John J. DiGiovanna, MD, described XP as a disorder of genomic instability, which has no cure. It’s caused by a mutation in genes XPA through XPG and the XP variant (XPV) gene. “The genome controls our genes, and UV rays damage DNA,” said Dr. DiGiovanna, who is a senior research physician at the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Cancer and Biology and Genetics, Bethesda, Md. “This damage from UV radiation is similar to damage from chemical agents that form DNA adducts, such as cigarette smoke and certain chemotherapy agents such as cisplatinum.”
XP patients present with or without acute burning after minimal sun exposure, while children with both subtypes develop “freckling” by the time they reach 2 years of age. Dr. DiGiovanna pointed out that lentigo maligna lesions associated with XP resemble freckles at first glance, yet they vary in size, intensity, and border. Meanwhile, freckles in healthy patients are similar in size, are light tan in color, and have a regular border.
“The burning with minimal sun exposure that occurs during childhood leads to pigmentary changes, atrophy, xerosis, and telangiectasias,” he said. A follow-up analysis of 106 XP patients admitted to the National Institutes of Health between 1971 and 2009 found that patients were diagnosed with their first nonmelanoma skin cancer at a median age of 9 years, compared with age 67 among those in the general population (J Med Genet 2011 Mar;48[3]:168-76). “This is a 58-year decrease in age at risk, which is a 10,000-fold increase in skin cancer,” said Dr. DiGiovanna, who was one of the study authors.
Melanoma also occurs at an earlier age among XP patients – a median age of 22 years, compared with a median of 55 years in the general population. “In the general population, melanoma occurs at a younger age than nonmelanoma skin cancer, while in the XP population, melanoma occurs at an older age,” he said. “This is giving us a good biologic lesson that the melanoma induction mechanism must be different from nonmelanoma skin cancer.”
He recalled one XP patient who was followed by NIH researchers for 4 decades. She worked in a doctor’s office and drove a car, but developed progressive neurologic degeneration and died at the age of 40. “This was not due to unrepaired UV damage, but there are other agents which damage other neurons,” Dr. DiGiovanna explained. “Over time, what you get is a decrease in brain volume, an increase in the brain ventricles, and a loss of brain tissue. At postmortem examination, her brain was of infantile size, compared with that of an equivalent 40-year-old. This is a disease of neuronal loss, and it’s progressive. Only about 20%-25% of XP patients experience neural degeneration.”
Management of XP involves strict sun avoidance, including use of a portable UV meter and many layers of UV protection, including application of sunscreen, wearing protective clothing, sunglasses, hats, and face shields, and the use of UV-blocking window film, LED lights, and a vitamin D diet or oral supplementation. Affected individuals also require frequent skin monitoring by the patients and their family members, frequent dermatologic exams by clinicians, biopsy of suspicious lesions, removal of any skin cancers found, field treatments with agents such as 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod, and chemoprevention with oral retinoids for patients who are actively developing large numbers of new lesions (N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun23;318[25]:1633-7).
“Probably the most important thing you can do is refer them to patient support groups,” Dr. DiGiovanna said. “They are present in many countries and can help them manage the day-to-day issues of their condition.” Support groups based in North America include the XP Family Support Group, XP Society, and XP Grupo Luz De Esperanza.
Dr. DiGiovanna reported having no financial disclosures.
AUSTIN, TEX. – If a child presents with acute (XP), a rare autosomal recessive disorder.
Other telltale symptoms of XP include the presence of skin cancer at an early age and a large number of skin cancers.
At the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, John J. DiGiovanna, MD, described XP as a disorder of genomic instability, which has no cure. It’s caused by a mutation in genes XPA through XPG and the XP variant (XPV) gene. “The genome controls our genes, and UV rays damage DNA,” said Dr. DiGiovanna, who is a senior research physician at the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Cancer and Biology and Genetics, Bethesda, Md. “This damage from UV radiation is similar to damage from chemical agents that form DNA adducts, such as cigarette smoke and certain chemotherapy agents such as cisplatinum.”
XP patients present with or without acute burning after minimal sun exposure, while children with both subtypes develop “freckling” by the time they reach 2 years of age. Dr. DiGiovanna pointed out that lentigo maligna lesions associated with XP resemble freckles at first glance, yet they vary in size, intensity, and border. Meanwhile, freckles in healthy patients are similar in size, are light tan in color, and have a regular border.
“The burning with minimal sun exposure that occurs during childhood leads to pigmentary changes, atrophy, xerosis, and telangiectasias,” he said. A follow-up analysis of 106 XP patients admitted to the National Institutes of Health between 1971 and 2009 found that patients were diagnosed with their first nonmelanoma skin cancer at a median age of 9 years, compared with age 67 among those in the general population (J Med Genet 2011 Mar;48[3]:168-76). “This is a 58-year decrease in age at risk, which is a 10,000-fold increase in skin cancer,” said Dr. DiGiovanna, who was one of the study authors.
Melanoma also occurs at an earlier age among XP patients – a median age of 22 years, compared with a median of 55 years in the general population. “In the general population, melanoma occurs at a younger age than nonmelanoma skin cancer, while in the XP population, melanoma occurs at an older age,” he said. “This is giving us a good biologic lesson that the melanoma induction mechanism must be different from nonmelanoma skin cancer.”
He recalled one XP patient who was followed by NIH researchers for 4 decades. She worked in a doctor’s office and drove a car, but developed progressive neurologic degeneration and died at the age of 40. “This was not due to unrepaired UV damage, but there are other agents which damage other neurons,” Dr. DiGiovanna explained. “Over time, what you get is a decrease in brain volume, an increase in the brain ventricles, and a loss of brain tissue. At postmortem examination, her brain was of infantile size, compared with that of an equivalent 40-year-old. This is a disease of neuronal loss, and it’s progressive. Only about 20%-25% of XP patients experience neural degeneration.”
Management of XP involves strict sun avoidance, including use of a portable UV meter and many layers of UV protection, including application of sunscreen, wearing protective clothing, sunglasses, hats, and face shields, and the use of UV-blocking window film, LED lights, and a vitamin D diet or oral supplementation. Affected individuals also require frequent skin monitoring by the patients and their family members, frequent dermatologic exams by clinicians, biopsy of suspicious lesions, removal of any skin cancers found, field treatments with agents such as 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod, and chemoprevention with oral retinoids for patients who are actively developing large numbers of new lesions (N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun23;318[25]:1633-7).
“Probably the most important thing you can do is refer them to patient support groups,” Dr. DiGiovanna said. “They are present in many countries and can help them manage the day-to-day issues of their condition.” Support groups based in North America include the XP Family Support Group, XP Society, and XP Grupo Luz De Esperanza.
Dr. DiGiovanna reported having no financial disclosures.
AUSTIN, TEX. – If a child presents with acute (XP), a rare autosomal recessive disorder.
Other telltale symptoms of XP include the presence of skin cancer at an early age and a large number of skin cancers.
At the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, John J. DiGiovanna, MD, described XP as a disorder of genomic instability, which has no cure. It’s caused by a mutation in genes XPA through XPG and the XP variant (XPV) gene. “The genome controls our genes, and UV rays damage DNA,” said Dr. DiGiovanna, who is a senior research physician at the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Cancer and Biology and Genetics, Bethesda, Md. “This damage from UV radiation is similar to damage from chemical agents that form DNA adducts, such as cigarette smoke and certain chemotherapy agents such as cisplatinum.”
XP patients present with or without acute burning after minimal sun exposure, while children with both subtypes develop “freckling” by the time they reach 2 years of age. Dr. DiGiovanna pointed out that lentigo maligna lesions associated with XP resemble freckles at first glance, yet they vary in size, intensity, and border. Meanwhile, freckles in healthy patients are similar in size, are light tan in color, and have a regular border.
“The burning with minimal sun exposure that occurs during childhood leads to pigmentary changes, atrophy, xerosis, and telangiectasias,” he said. A follow-up analysis of 106 XP patients admitted to the National Institutes of Health between 1971 and 2009 found that patients were diagnosed with their first nonmelanoma skin cancer at a median age of 9 years, compared with age 67 among those in the general population (J Med Genet 2011 Mar;48[3]:168-76). “This is a 58-year decrease in age at risk, which is a 10,000-fold increase in skin cancer,” said Dr. DiGiovanna, who was one of the study authors.
Melanoma also occurs at an earlier age among XP patients – a median age of 22 years, compared with a median of 55 years in the general population. “In the general population, melanoma occurs at a younger age than nonmelanoma skin cancer, while in the XP population, melanoma occurs at an older age,” he said. “This is giving us a good biologic lesson that the melanoma induction mechanism must be different from nonmelanoma skin cancer.”
He recalled one XP patient who was followed by NIH researchers for 4 decades. She worked in a doctor’s office and drove a car, but developed progressive neurologic degeneration and died at the age of 40. “This was not due to unrepaired UV damage, but there are other agents which damage other neurons,” Dr. DiGiovanna explained. “Over time, what you get is a decrease in brain volume, an increase in the brain ventricles, and a loss of brain tissue. At postmortem examination, her brain was of infantile size, compared with that of an equivalent 40-year-old. This is a disease of neuronal loss, and it’s progressive. Only about 20%-25% of XP patients experience neural degeneration.”
Management of XP involves strict sun avoidance, including use of a portable UV meter and many layers of UV protection, including application of sunscreen, wearing protective clothing, sunglasses, hats, and face shields, and the use of UV-blocking window film, LED lights, and a vitamin D diet or oral supplementation. Affected individuals also require frequent skin monitoring by the patients and their family members, frequent dermatologic exams by clinicians, biopsy of suspicious lesions, removal of any skin cancers found, field treatments with agents such as 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod, and chemoprevention with oral retinoids for patients who are actively developing large numbers of new lesions (N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun23;318[25]:1633-7).
“Probably the most important thing you can do is refer them to patient support groups,” Dr. DiGiovanna said. “They are present in many countries and can help them manage the day-to-day issues of their condition.” Support groups based in North America include the XP Family Support Group, XP Society, and XP Grupo Luz De Esperanza.
Dr. DiGiovanna reported having no financial disclosures.
REPORTING FROM SPD 2019
Metformin-TKI combo improves PFS in EGFR-mutated lung cancer
Combination metformin and epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy improved progression-free survival in patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“This is the first study to prospectively show that the addition of metformin to standard EGFR-TKIs therapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma significantly improves PFS [progression-free survival],” wrote Oscar Arrieta, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
The open-label, randomized study included 139 patients, 69 of whom were randomly assigned to receive metformin plus EGFR-TKI therapy and 70 of whom received EGFR-TKI monotherapy.
EGFR-TKI therapy was selected based on physician choice and consisted of either afatinib dimaleate, gefitinib, or erlotinib hydrochloride at regular doses. Study patients in the combination arm received metformin 500 mg twice daily.
The primary endpoint was PFS (intent-to-treat population). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety.
After analysis, the researchers found that the median PFS was 13.1 months with metformin-EGFR-TKI combination therapy and 9.9 months with EGFR-TKI monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .03).
In addition, the median OS was also significantly prolonged for patients receiving combined treatment (31.7 months vs. 17.5 months; P = .02).
“Multivariable analysis showed that treatment with metformin is independently associated with longer PFS and OS,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, no significant rise in adverse events was observed, and toxicities were comparable across both treatment groups.
The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the absence of a double-blinded design. As a result, various biases could have influenced the results.
“The results from this phase 2 study warrant the design of a larger, phase 3, placebo-controlled study to draw more robust conclusions,” they said.
The study was funded by the National Council for Science and Technology in Mexico. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and several others.
SOURCE: Arrieta O et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2553.
Combination metformin and epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy improved progression-free survival in patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“This is the first study to prospectively show that the addition of metformin to standard EGFR-TKIs therapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma significantly improves PFS [progression-free survival],” wrote Oscar Arrieta, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
The open-label, randomized study included 139 patients, 69 of whom were randomly assigned to receive metformin plus EGFR-TKI therapy and 70 of whom received EGFR-TKI monotherapy.
EGFR-TKI therapy was selected based on physician choice and consisted of either afatinib dimaleate, gefitinib, or erlotinib hydrochloride at regular doses. Study patients in the combination arm received metformin 500 mg twice daily.
The primary endpoint was PFS (intent-to-treat population). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety.
After analysis, the researchers found that the median PFS was 13.1 months with metformin-EGFR-TKI combination therapy and 9.9 months with EGFR-TKI monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .03).
In addition, the median OS was also significantly prolonged for patients receiving combined treatment (31.7 months vs. 17.5 months; P = .02).
“Multivariable analysis showed that treatment with metformin is independently associated with longer PFS and OS,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, no significant rise in adverse events was observed, and toxicities were comparable across both treatment groups.
The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the absence of a double-blinded design. As a result, various biases could have influenced the results.
“The results from this phase 2 study warrant the design of a larger, phase 3, placebo-controlled study to draw more robust conclusions,” they said.
The study was funded by the National Council for Science and Technology in Mexico. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and several others.
SOURCE: Arrieta O et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2553.
Combination metformin and epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy improved progression-free survival in patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“This is the first study to prospectively show that the addition of metformin to standard EGFR-TKIs therapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma significantly improves PFS [progression-free survival],” wrote Oscar Arrieta, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
The open-label, randomized study included 139 patients, 69 of whom were randomly assigned to receive metformin plus EGFR-TKI therapy and 70 of whom received EGFR-TKI monotherapy.
EGFR-TKI therapy was selected based on physician choice and consisted of either afatinib dimaleate, gefitinib, or erlotinib hydrochloride at regular doses. Study patients in the combination arm received metformin 500 mg twice daily.
The primary endpoint was PFS (intent-to-treat population). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety.
After analysis, the researchers found that the median PFS was 13.1 months with metformin-EGFR-TKI combination therapy and 9.9 months with EGFR-TKI monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .03).
In addition, the median OS was also significantly prolonged for patients receiving combined treatment (31.7 months vs. 17.5 months; P = .02).
“Multivariable analysis showed that treatment with metformin is independently associated with longer PFS and OS,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, no significant rise in adverse events was observed, and toxicities were comparable across both treatment groups.
The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the absence of a double-blinded design. As a result, various biases could have influenced the results.
“The results from this phase 2 study warrant the design of a larger, phase 3, placebo-controlled study to draw more robust conclusions,” they said.
The study was funded by the National Council for Science and Technology in Mexico. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and several others.
SOURCE: Arrieta O et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2553.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Older IBD patients are most at risk of postdischarge VTE
Hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are most likely to be readmitted for venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 60 days of discharge, according to a new study that analyzed 5 years of U.S. readmissions data.
“Given increased thrombotic risk postdischarge, as well as overall safety of VTE prophylaxis, extending prophylaxis for those at highest risk may have significant benefits,” wrote Adam S. Faye, MD, of Columbia University, and coauthors. The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
To determine which IBD patients would be most in need of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis, as well as when to administer it, the researchers analyzed 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). They found a total of 872,122 index admissions for IBD patients; 4% of those patients had a prior VTE. Of the index admissions, 1,160 led to a VTE readmission within 90 days. Readmitted patients had a relatively equal proportion of ulcerative colitis (n = 522) and Crohn’s disease (n = 638).
More than 90% of VTE readmissions occurred within 60 days of discharge; the risk was highest over the first 10 days and then decreased in each ensuing 10-day period until a slight increase at the 81- to 90-day period. All patients over age 30 had higher rates of readmission than those of patients under age 18, with the highest risk in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 years (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01). Women were at lower risk (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, P less than .01). Higher risks of readmission were also associated with being on Medicare (RR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.58, P less than .01) compared with being on private insurance and being cared for at a large hospital (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52, P = .02) compared with a small hospital.
The highest risk of VTE readmission was associated with a prior history of VTE (RR 2.89; 95% CI, 2.40-3.48, P less than .01), having two or more comorbidities (RR 2.57; 95% CI, 2.11-3.12, P less than .01) and having a Clostridioides difficile infection as of index admission (RR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.51-2.38, P less than .01). In addition, increased risk was associated with being discharged to a nursing or care facility (RR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.56-2.20, P less than .01) or home with health services (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.38, P less than .01) compared with a routine discharge.
In their multivariable analysis, similar factors such as a history of VTE (adjusted RR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.99-2.90, P less than .01), two or more comorbidities (aRR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20, P less than .01) and C. difficile infection (aRR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85, P less than.01) continued to be associated with higher risk of VTE readmission.
Though they emphasized that the use of NRD data offered the impressive ability to “review over 15 million discharges across the U.S. annually,” Dr. Faye and coauthors acknowledged that their study did have limitations. These included the inability to verify via chart review the study’s outcomes and covariates. In addition, they were unable to assess potential contributing risk factors such as medication use, use of VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization, disease severity, and family history. Finally, though unlikely, they admitted the possibility that patients could be counted more than once if they were readmitted with a VTE each year of the study.
The authors reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving honoraria and serving as consultants.
SOURCE: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.
Hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are most likely to be readmitted for venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 60 days of discharge, according to a new study that analyzed 5 years of U.S. readmissions data.
“Given increased thrombotic risk postdischarge, as well as overall safety of VTE prophylaxis, extending prophylaxis for those at highest risk may have significant benefits,” wrote Adam S. Faye, MD, of Columbia University, and coauthors. The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
To determine which IBD patients would be most in need of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis, as well as when to administer it, the researchers analyzed 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). They found a total of 872,122 index admissions for IBD patients; 4% of those patients had a prior VTE. Of the index admissions, 1,160 led to a VTE readmission within 90 days. Readmitted patients had a relatively equal proportion of ulcerative colitis (n = 522) and Crohn’s disease (n = 638).
More than 90% of VTE readmissions occurred within 60 days of discharge; the risk was highest over the first 10 days and then decreased in each ensuing 10-day period until a slight increase at the 81- to 90-day period. All patients over age 30 had higher rates of readmission than those of patients under age 18, with the highest risk in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 years (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01). Women were at lower risk (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, P less than .01). Higher risks of readmission were also associated with being on Medicare (RR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.58, P less than .01) compared with being on private insurance and being cared for at a large hospital (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52, P = .02) compared with a small hospital.
The highest risk of VTE readmission was associated with a prior history of VTE (RR 2.89; 95% CI, 2.40-3.48, P less than .01), having two or more comorbidities (RR 2.57; 95% CI, 2.11-3.12, P less than .01) and having a Clostridioides difficile infection as of index admission (RR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.51-2.38, P less than .01). In addition, increased risk was associated with being discharged to a nursing or care facility (RR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.56-2.20, P less than .01) or home with health services (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.38, P less than .01) compared with a routine discharge.
In their multivariable analysis, similar factors such as a history of VTE (adjusted RR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.99-2.90, P less than .01), two or more comorbidities (aRR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20, P less than .01) and C. difficile infection (aRR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85, P less than.01) continued to be associated with higher risk of VTE readmission.
Though they emphasized that the use of NRD data offered the impressive ability to “review over 15 million discharges across the U.S. annually,” Dr. Faye and coauthors acknowledged that their study did have limitations. These included the inability to verify via chart review the study’s outcomes and covariates. In addition, they were unable to assess potential contributing risk factors such as medication use, use of VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization, disease severity, and family history. Finally, though unlikely, they admitted the possibility that patients could be counted more than once if they were readmitted with a VTE each year of the study.
The authors reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving honoraria and serving as consultants.
SOURCE: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.
Hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are most likely to be readmitted for venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 60 days of discharge, according to a new study that analyzed 5 years of U.S. readmissions data.
“Given increased thrombotic risk postdischarge, as well as overall safety of VTE prophylaxis, extending prophylaxis for those at highest risk may have significant benefits,” wrote Adam S. Faye, MD, of Columbia University, and coauthors. The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
To determine which IBD patients would be most in need of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis, as well as when to administer it, the researchers analyzed 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). They found a total of 872,122 index admissions for IBD patients; 4% of those patients had a prior VTE. Of the index admissions, 1,160 led to a VTE readmission within 90 days. Readmitted patients had a relatively equal proportion of ulcerative colitis (n = 522) and Crohn’s disease (n = 638).
More than 90% of VTE readmissions occurred within 60 days of discharge; the risk was highest over the first 10 days and then decreased in each ensuing 10-day period until a slight increase at the 81- to 90-day period. All patients over age 30 had higher rates of readmission than those of patients under age 18, with the highest risk in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 years (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01). Women were at lower risk (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, P less than .01). Higher risks of readmission were also associated with being on Medicare (RR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.58, P less than .01) compared with being on private insurance and being cared for at a large hospital (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52, P = .02) compared with a small hospital.
The highest risk of VTE readmission was associated with a prior history of VTE (RR 2.89; 95% CI, 2.40-3.48, P less than .01), having two or more comorbidities (RR 2.57; 95% CI, 2.11-3.12, P less than .01) and having a Clostridioides difficile infection as of index admission (RR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.51-2.38, P less than .01). In addition, increased risk was associated with being discharged to a nursing or care facility (RR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.56-2.20, P less than .01) or home with health services (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.38, P less than .01) compared with a routine discharge.
In their multivariable analysis, similar factors such as a history of VTE (adjusted RR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.99-2.90, P less than .01), two or more comorbidities (aRR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20, P less than .01) and C. difficile infection (aRR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85, P less than.01) continued to be associated with higher risk of VTE readmission.
Though they emphasized that the use of NRD data offered the impressive ability to “review over 15 million discharges across the U.S. annually,” Dr. Faye and coauthors acknowledged that their study did have limitations. These included the inability to verify via chart review the study’s outcomes and covariates. In addition, they were unable to assess potential contributing risk factors such as medication use, use of VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization, disease severity, and family history. Finally, though unlikely, they admitted the possibility that patients could be counted more than once if they were readmitted with a VTE each year of the study.
The authors reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving honoraria and serving as consultants.
SOURCE: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Readmission for VTE in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases most often occurs within 60 days of discharge.
Major finding: The highest readmission risk was in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01).
Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 1,160 IBD patients who had VTE readmissions via 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database.
Disclosures: The authors reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and various pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving honoraria and serving as consultants.
Source: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.
How to distinguish Stevens-Johnson syndrome from its mimickers
NEW YORK – said Lucia Seminario-Vidal, MD, PhD, speaking at a hospital dermatology–focused session of the summer meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Even before histopathologic results are available, dermatologists can help take some of the panic out of the room when Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) is first on the differential diagnosis for the referring physician, she said. Physical findings, a careful review of systems, and past history – especially the introduction of any new medications – can go a long way toward ruling out SJS/TEN among many patients.
In a recent study coauthored by Dr. Seminario-Vidal, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, 208 inpatients with suspected SJS/TEN, 72% were given another diagnosis after a dermatologist consultation (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Sep;81[3]:749-57). The study’s authors, led by Allison Weinkle, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of South Florida, performed a retrospective chart review of 208 patients suspected of having SJS/TEN and received inpatient dermatology consultations.
One surprising finding from the review is that “known risk factors for SJS/TEN such as drug exposure, malignancy, and HIV/AIDS are not helpful to differentiate it from its mimickers,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
However, close attention to the clinical presentation is helpful in differentiating the mimickers from true SJS/TEN. Fever, painful skin, Nikolsky sign, and mucosal involvement were all more common in patients with SJS/TEN. “This was something that was really helpful to discuss with the primary teams at our institutions,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
The most common mimickers in the cases she and her colleagues reviewed were severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) and erythema multiforme; in general, the mimickers were conditions that have severe mucocutaneous involvement.
Patients with SJS/TEN will have fever and pain, typically, and the primary lesions are atypical targets with a positive Nikolsky sign. Hepatic enzyme elevation is seen in 15% of patients, and lymphopenia may be present. Common drugs provoking SJS/TEN include antibiotics, anticonvulsants, NSAIDs, allopurinol, and – importantly – programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. Because PD-1s are being used for an ever-expanding range of oncology indications, the rate of SJS/TEN may be expected to rise, Dr. Seminario-Vidal noted.
Other common mimics can include a florid generalized fixed drug eruption, which can also be painful and have atypical targets and a positive Nikolsky sign. Here, large, dusky patches may be present, with perioral, genital, and hand/foot involvement common, but fever is absent. Lesions are sharply localized, round or oval, and they recur at the same site with reexposure to the provoking agent. “Histopathologic studies are diagnostic in these patients, but many times, if you have a good clinical history, you don’t need histopathology,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
As with SJS/TEN, mucosal involvement can be present with fixed drug eruptions. However, hepatic enzymes and the complete blood count will not show abnormalities related to the fixed drug eruption.
Sulfonamides have been associated with up to 75% of fixed drug eruptions reported in some case series, she said, noting that common over-the-counter medications such as nonprescription analgesics, loratadine, and pseudoephedrine can also provoke fixed drug eruptions.
Bullous conditions that can mimic SJS/TEN include linear Immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis. “We know that the classic presentation is the beautiful ‘string of pearls’ sign, but most patients won’t have this,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said. The condition often appears in intertriginous locations, and Koebnerization can be a strong clue to this diagnosis, she added.
This painful condition rarely has an associated fever, and will occasionally involve the mucosa, but it doesn’t cause alterations in laboratory values. About 70% of cases of drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis are caused by vancomycin, a consideration when patients may be on several antibiotics. “When I first started, I used to stop everything,” said Dr. Seminario-Vidal. Now, she first discontinues vancomycin and rechecks the patient the next day. In the absence of progression, vancomycin can be presumed to be the culprit, she said.
In bullous pemphigoid, mucosal involvement has been reported in up to 30% of patients, which can initially confuse the diagnosis. “A clue is the presence of tense bullae that initially are very pruritic, but they can become painful over time,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said. “With tense bullae, with no specific primary lesion, but the patient is very itchy, think bullous pemphigoid.” Pain is sometimes present, but fever is rare. Eosinophilia occurs about 50% of the time, offering an additional diagnostic clue.
Furosemide is a common culprit in drug-induced bullous pemphigoid, as is its cousin bumetanide. Certain analgesics, amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors have also been implicated, said Dr. Seminario-Vidal, though most cases are not drug induced. “Go over the drug history of the patients. It’s something that I cannot emphasize enough … because if you find the drug that causes this disease, you can avoid lengthy systemic treatment.”
Pemphigus foliaceus has a characteristic crusting scale that forms with the rupture of flaccid bullae. Nikolsky’s sign is positive. Mucosal involvement is rare, but is sometimes seen on the occasions when the condition is drug-induced, and laboratory values are usually normal, she said. “The clues to diagnosis of these patients are involvement in the seborrheic areas, including the face; there’s a lot of crust in pemphigus foliaceus.”
Drug-induced pemphigus foliaceus is associated with drugs that have a thiol group, or with sulfur groups that are converted to thiol (–SH) groups. These include both angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, penicillins, cephalosporins, and piroxicam. However, said Dr. Seminario-Vidal, penicillamine alone accounts for 50% of drug-induced pemphigus foliaceus.
Dr. Seminario-Vidal reported financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Soligenix, Helsinn, Eisai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corrona, Akros, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Glenmark, and Kyowa Kirin.
SOURCE: Seminario-Vidal L. Summer AAD 2019, Session F-025.
NEW YORK – said Lucia Seminario-Vidal, MD, PhD, speaking at a hospital dermatology–focused session of the summer meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Even before histopathologic results are available, dermatologists can help take some of the panic out of the room when Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) is first on the differential diagnosis for the referring physician, she said. Physical findings, a careful review of systems, and past history – especially the introduction of any new medications – can go a long way toward ruling out SJS/TEN among many patients.
In a recent study coauthored by Dr. Seminario-Vidal, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, 208 inpatients with suspected SJS/TEN, 72% were given another diagnosis after a dermatologist consultation (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Sep;81[3]:749-57). The study’s authors, led by Allison Weinkle, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of South Florida, performed a retrospective chart review of 208 patients suspected of having SJS/TEN and received inpatient dermatology consultations.
One surprising finding from the review is that “known risk factors for SJS/TEN such as drug exposure, malignancy, and HIV/AIDS are not helpful to differentiate it from its mimickers,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
However, close attention to the clinical presentation is helpful in differentiating the mimickers from true SJS/TEN. Fever, painful skin, Nikolsky sign, and mucosal involvement were all more common in patients with SJS/TEN. “This was something that was really helpful to discuss with the primary teams at our institutions,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
The most common mimickers in the cases she and her colleagues reviewed were severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) and erythema multiforme; in general, the mimickers were conditions that have severe mucocutaneous involvement.
Patients with SJS/TEN will have fever and pain, typically, and the primary lesions are atypical targets with a positive Nikolsky sign. Hepatic enzyme elevation is seen in 15% of patients, and lymphopenia may be present. Common drugs provoking SJS/TEN include antibiotics, anticonvulsants, NSAIDs, allopurinol, and – importantly – programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. Because PD-1s are being used for an ever-expanding range of oncology indications, the rate of SJS/TEN may be expected to rise, Dr. Seminario-Vidal noted.
Other common mimics can include a florid generalized fixed drug eruption, which can also be painful and have atypical targets and a positive Nikolsky sign. Here, large, dusky patches may be present, with perioral, genital, and hand/foot involvement common, but fever is absent. Lesions are sharply localized, round or oval, and they recur at the same site with reexposure to the provoking agent. “Histopathologic studies are diagnostic in these patients, but many times, if you have a good clinical history, you don’t need histopathology,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
As with SJS/TEN, mucosal involvement can be present with fixed drug eruptions. However, hepatic enzymes and the complete blood count will not show abnormalities related to the fixed drug eruption.
Sulfonamides have been associated with up to 75% of fixed drug eruptions reported in some case series, she said, noting that common over-the-counter medications such as nonprescription analgesics, loratadine, and pseudoephedrine can also provoke fixed drug eruptions.
Bullous conditions that can mimic SJS/TEN include linear Immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis. “We know that the classic presentation is the beautiful ‘string of pearls’ sign, but most patients won’t have this,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said. The condition often appears in intertriginous locations, and Koebnerization can be a strong clue to this diagnosis, she added.
This painful condition rarely has an associated fever, and will occasionally involve the mucosa, but it doesn’t cause alterations in laboratory values. About 70% of cases of drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis are caused by vancomycin, a consideration when patients may be on several antibiotics. “When I first started, I used to stop everything,” said Dr. Seminario-Vidal. Now, she first discontinues vancomycin and rechecks the patient the next day. In the absence of progression, vancomycin can be presumed to be the culprit, she said.
In bullous pemphigoid, mucosal involvement has been reported in up to 30% of patients, which can initially confuse the diagnosis. “A clue is the presence of tense bullae that initially are very pruritic, but they can become painful over time,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said. “With tense bullae, with no specific primary lesion, but the patient is very itchy, think bullous pemphigoid.” Pain is sometimes present, but fever is rare. Eosinophilia occurs about 50% of the time, offering an additional diagnostic clue.
Furosemide is a common culprit in drug-induced bullous pemphigoid, as is its cousin bumetanide. Certain analgesics, amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors have also been implicated, said Dr. Seminario-Vidal, though most cases are not drug induced. “Go over the drug history of the patients. It’s something that I cannot emphasize enough … because if you find the drug that causes this disease, you can avoid lengthy systemic treatment.”
Pemphigus foliaceus has a characteristic crusting scale that forms with the rupture of flaccid bullae. Nikolsky’s sign is positive. Mucosal involvement is rare, but is sometimes seen on the occasions when the condition is drug-induced, and laboratory values are usually normal, she said. “The clues to diagnosis of these patients are involvement in the seborrheic areas, including the face; there’s a lot of crust in pemphigus foliaceus.”
Drug-induced pemphigus foliaceus is associated with drugs that have a thiol group, or with sulfur groups that are converted to thiol (–SH) groups. These include both angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, penicillins, cephalosporins, and piroxicam. However, said Dr. Seminario-Vidal, penicillamine alone accounts for 50% of drug-induced pemphigus foliaceus.
Dr. Seminario-Vidal reported financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Soligenix, Helsinn, Eisai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corrona, Akros, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Glenmark, and Kyowa Kirin.
SOURCE: Seminario-Vidal L. Summer AAD 2019, Session F-025.
NEW YORK – said Lucia Seminario-Vidal, MD, PhD, speaking at a hospital dermatology–focused session of the summer meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Even before histopathologic results are available, dermatologists can help take some of the panic out of the room when Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) is first on the differential diagnosis for the referring physician, she said. Physical findings, a careful review of systems, and past history – especially the introduction of any new medications – can go a long way toward ruling out SJS/TEN among many patients.
In a recent study coauthored by Dr. Seminario-Vidal, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, 208 inpatients with suspected SJS/TEN, 72% were given another diagnosis after a dermatologist consultation (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Sep;81[3]:749-57). The study’s authors, led by Allison Weinkle, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of South Florida, performed a retrospective chart review of 208 patients suspected of having SJS/TEN and received inpatient dermatology consultations.
One surprising finding from the review is that “known risk factors for SJS/TEN such as drug exposure, malignancy, and HIV/AIDS are not helpful to differentiate it from its mimickers,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
However, close attention to the clinical presentation is helpful in differentiating the mimickers from true SJS/TEN. Fever, painful skin, Nikolsky sign, and mucosal involvement were all more common in patients with SJS/TEN. “This was something that was really helpful to discuss with the primary teams at our institutions,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
The most common mimickers in the cases she and her colleagues reviewed were severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) and erythema multiforme; in general, the mimickers were conditions that have severe mucocutaneous involvement.
Patients with SJS/TEN will have fever and pain, typically, and the primary lesions are atypical targets with a positive Nikolsky sign. Hepatic enzyme elevation is seen in 15% of patients, and lymphopenia may be present. Common drugs provoking SJS/TEN include antibiotics, anticonvulsants, NSAIDs, allopurinol, and – importantly – programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. Because PD-1s are being used for an ever-expanding range of oncology indications, the rate of SJS/TEN may be expected to rise, Dr. Seminario-Vidal noted.
Other common mimics can include a florid generalized fixed drug eruption, which can also be painful and have atypical targets and a positive Nikolsky sign. Here, large, dusky patches may be present, with perioral, genital, and hand/foot involvement common, but fever is absent. Lesions are sharply localized, round or oval, and they recur at the same site with reexposure to the provoking agent. “Histopathologic studies are diagnostic in these patients, but many times, if you have a good clinical history, you don’t need histopathology,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said.
As with SJS/TEN, mucosal involvement can be present with fixed drug eruptions. However, hepatic enzymes and the complete blood count will not show abnormalities related to the fixed drug eruption.
Sulfonamides have been associated with up to 75% of fixed drug eruptions reported in some case series, she said, noting that common over-the-counter medications such as nonprescription analgesics, loratadine, and pseudoephedrine can also provoke fixed drug eruptions.
Bullous conditions that can mimic SJS/TEN include linear Immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis. “We know that the classic presentation is the beautiful ‘string of pearls’ sign, but most patients won’t have this,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said. The condition often appears in intertriginous locations, and Koebnerization can be a strong clue to this diagnosis, she added.
This painful condition rarely has an associated fever, and will occasionally involve the mucosa, but it doesn’t cause alterations in laboratory values. About 70% of cases of drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis are caused by vancomycin, a consideration when patients may be on several antibiotics. “When I first started, I used to stop everything,” said Dr. Seminario-Vidal. Now, she first discontinues vancomycin and rechecks the patient the next day. In the absence of progression, vancomycin can be presumed to be the culprit, she said.
In bullous pemphigoid, mucosal involvement has been reported in up to 30% of patients, which can initially confuse the diagnosis. “A clue is the presence of tense bullae that initially are very pruritic, but they can become painful over time,” Dr. Seminario-Vidal said. “With tense bullae, with no specific primary lesion, but the patient is very itchy, think bullous pemphigoid.” Pain is sometimes present, but fever is rare. Eosinophilia occurs about 50% of the time, offering an additional diagnostic clue.
Furosemide is a common culprit in drug-induced bullous pemphigoid, as is its cousin bumetanide. Certain analgesics, amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors have also been implicated, said Dr. Seminario-Vidal, though most cases are not drug induced. “Go over the drug history of the patients. It’s something that I cannot emphasize enough … because if you find the drug that causes this disease, you can avoid lengthy systemic treatment.”
Pemphigus foliaceus has a characteristic crusting scale that forms with the rupture of flaccid bullae. Nikolsky’s sign is positive. Mucosal involvement is rare, but is sometimes seen on the occasions when the condition is drug-induced, and laboratory values are usually normal, she said. “The clues to diagnosis of these patients are involvement in the seborrheic areas, including the face; there’s a lot of crust in pemphigus foliaceus.”
Drug-induced pemphigus foliaceus is associated with drugs that have a thiol group, or with sulfur groups that are converted to thiol (–SH) groups. These include both angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, penicillins, cephalosporins, and piroxicam. However, said Dr. Seminario-Vidal, penicillamine alone accounts for 50% of drug-induced pemphigus foliaceus.
Dr. Seminario-Vidal reported financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Soligenix, Helsinn, Eisai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corrona, Akros, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Glenmark, and Kyowa Kirin.
SOURCE: Seminario-Vidal L. Summer AAD 2019, Session F-025.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SUMMER AAD 2019
Nonmyeloablative conditioning carries lowers infection risk in patients with AML
For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC), based on a retrospective study involving more than 1,700 patients.
Within 100 days of treatment, patients who underwent MAC were significantly more likely to develop a bacterial infection, and develop it at an earlier date, than patients who had undergone RIC/NMA, reported lead author Celalettin Ustun, MD, of Rush University in Chicago, and colleagues.
“The incidence of infections, a common and often severe complication of alloHCT, is expected to be lower after RIC/NMA compared with MAC and thus contribute to the decreased [nonrelapse mortality],” the investigators wrote in Blood Advances, noting that this hypothesis has previously lacked supporting data, prompting the present study.
The retrospective analysis involved 1,755 patients with AML who were in first complete remission. Data were drawn from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The primary end point was incidence of infection within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT in patients receiving MAC (n = 978) versus those who underwent RIC/NMA (n = 777). Secondary end points included comparisons of infection types and infection density.
Patients who received RIC/NMA were generally older and more likely to have myelodysplastic syndrome than patients in the MAC group; the groups were otherwise similar, based on comorbidities, cytogenetic risks, and Karnofsky performance scores.
The proportion of patients who developed at least one infection was comparable between groups: 61% of MAC patients versus 58% of RIC/NMA patients (P = .21), but further analysis showed that MAC was in fact associated with some relatively increased risks. For instance, patients in the MAC group tended to develop infections sooner than patients treated with RIC/NMA (21 vs. 15 days), and more patients treated with MAC had at least one bacterial infection by day 100 (46% vs. 37%).
Although the proportion of patients developing at least one viral infection was slightly lower in the MAC group than the RIC/NMA group (34% vs. 39%), overall infection density was higher, which takes into account multiple infections.
The increased bacterial infections after MAC were caused by gram-positive bacteria, while the increased viral infections with RIC/NMA were caused by cytomegalovirus, the investigators reported.
“RIC/NMA alloHCT is associated with a decreased risk of any infection and particularly early bacterial infections,” the investigators wrote. “The risk of viral and fungal infections per days at risk is similar.”
The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 10;3(17):2525-36.
For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC), based on a retrospective study involving more than 1,700 patients.
Within 100 days of treatment, patients who underwent MAC were significantly more likely to develop a bacterial infection, and develop it at an earlier date, than patients who had undergone RIC/NMA, reported lead author Celalettin Ustun, MD, of Rush University in Chicago, and colleagues.
“The incidence of infections, a common and often severe complication of alloHCT, is expected to be lower after RIC/NMA compared with MAC and thus contribute to the decreased [nonrelapse mortality],” the investigators wrote in Blood Advances, noting that this hypothesis has previously lacked supporting data, prompting the present study.
The retrospective analysis involved 1,755 patients with AML who were in first complete remission. Data were drawn from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The primary end point was incidence of infection within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT in patients receiving MAC (n = 978) versus those who underwent RIC/NMA (n = 777). Secondary end points included comparisons of infection types and infection density.
Patients who received RIC/NMA were generally older and more likely to have myelodysplastic syndrome than patients in the MAC group; the groups were otherwise similar, based on comorbidities, cytogenetic risks, and Karnofsky performance scores.
The proportion of patients who developed at least one infection was comparable between groups: 61% of MAC patients versus 58% of RIC/NMA patients (P = .21), but further analysis showed that MAC was in fact associated with some relatively increased risks. For instance, patients in the MAC group tended to develop infections sooner than patients treated with RIC/NMA (21 vs. 15 days), and more patients treated with MAC had at least one bacterial infection by day 100 (46% vs. 37%).
Although the proportion of patients developing at least one viral infection was slightly lower in the MAC group than the RIC/NMA group (34% vs. 39%), overall infection density was higher, which takes into account multiple infections.
The increased bacterial infections after MAC were caused by gram-positive bacteria, while the increased viral infections with RIC/NMA were caused by cytomegalovirus, the investigators reported.
“RIC/NMA alloHCT is associated with a decreased risk of any infection and particularly early bacterial infections,” the investigators wrote. “The risk of viral and fungal infections per days at risk is similar.”
The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 10;3(17):2525-36.
For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC), based on a retrospective study involving more than 1,700 patients.
Within 100 days of treatment, patients who underwent MAC were significantly more likely to develop a bacterial infection, and develop it at an earlier date, than patients who had undergone RIC/NMA, reported lead author Celalettin Ustun, MD, of Rush University in Chicago, and colleagues.
“The incidence of infections, a common and often severe complication of alloHCT, is expected to be lower after RIC/NMA compared with MAC and thus contribute to the decreased [nonrelapse mortality],” the investigators wrote in Blood Advances, noting that this hypothesis has previously lacked supporting data, prompting the present study.
The retrospective analysis involved 1,755 patients with AML who were in first complete remission. Data were drawn from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The primary end point was incidence of infection within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT in patients receiving MAC (n = 978) versus those who underwent RIC/NMA (n = 777). Secondary end points included comparisons of infection types and infection density.
Patients who received RIC/NMA were generally older and more likely to have myelodysplastic syndrome than patients in the MAC group; the groups were otherwise similar, based on comorbidities, cytogenetic risks, and Karnofsky performance scores.
The proportion of patients who developed at least one infection was comparable between groups: 61% of MAC patients versus 58% of RIC/NMA patients (P = .21), but further analysis showed that MAC was in fact associated with some relatively increased risks. For instance, patients in the MAC group tended to develop infections sooner than patients treated with RIC/NMA (21 vs. 15 days), and more patients treated with MAC had at least one bacterial infection by day 100 (46% vs. 37%).
Although the proportion of patients developing at least one viral infection was slightly lower in the MAC group than the RIC/NMA group (34% vs. 39%), overall infection density was higher, which takes into account multiple infections.
The increased bacterial infections after MAC were caused by gram-positive bacteria, while the increased viral infections with RIC/NMA were caused by cytomegalovirus, the investigators reported.
“RIC/NMA alloHCT is associated with a decreased risk of any infection and particularly early bacterial infections,” the investigators wrote. “The risk of viral and fungal infections per days at risk is similar.”
The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 10;3(17):2525-36.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Key clinical point: For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
Major finding: By day 100, 37% of patients who received RIC/NMA had at least one bacterial infection, compared with 46% of patients who underwent MAC (P = .0004).
Study details: A retrospective study involving 1,755 patients with AML in first complete remission.
Disclosures: The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
Source: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 3(17):2525-36.
Statins may do double duty as antidepressants
COPENHAGEN – The tantalizing prospect that statins could be repurposed as adjunctive antidepressant drugs in a defined subgroup of patients with major depression is finally about to undergo rigorous testing.
Several lines of preliminary evidence, including large observational cohort studies as well as three small, short-duration randomized trials, suggest that this might indeed be the case. It’s an extremely attractive possibility, since patients and physicians wish that antidepressant therapy were more effective, statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, and their safety profile is thoroughly established. The expectation is that a definitive answer as to whether repurposing of statins as antidepressants is worthwhile will be provided by the SIMCODE trial, recently approved for funding by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Christian Otte, MD, announced at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
SIMCODE is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to be conducted at eight German academic medical centers. Participants, all of whom must have major depressive disorder and comorbid obesity, will be randomized to simvastatin or placebo on top of standard antidepressant therapy with escitalopram, an SSRI which, like simvastatin, is available as a relatively inexpensive generic, explained Dr. Otte, professor and vice director of the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at Charite University in Berlin.
For Dr. Otte, SIMCODE will close a circle he helped open with his 2012 report from the Heart and Soul Study, a prospective longitudinal study of nearly 1,000 San Francisco Bay Area patients with coronary heart disease who were assessed annually for depressive symptoms for 6 years. The 65% of patients who were on statin therapy, albeit in nonrandomized fashion, had an adjusted 38% lower risk of developing depression (J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 May;73[5]:610-5).
His was one of seven observational studies involving more than 9,000 patients included in a subsequent meta-analysis showing that statin users were 37% less likely to develop depression than were nonusers (J Affect Disord. 2014 May;160:62-7).
All agreed that the verdict isn’t in yet as to statins’ effectiveness as adjunctive antidepressants, and that the subgroup of patients with major depression who are most likely to gain added antidepressive effect from a statin are those with what the speakers variously described as comorbid cardiometabolic disease, immunometabolic disease, or simply, as in SIMCODE, obesity. These are patients with a high degree of systemic inflammation, which often makes their depression less responsive to standard antidepressant therapies. The working hypothesis is that the pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects of statins will result in a greater response to conventional antidepressants.
Animal studies point to multiple potential mechanisms by which statins might have antidepressant efficacy in clinical practice, according to Dr. Otte. Beyond their anti-inflammatory effects, these include the drugs’ documented effects on glutamatergic N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine receptors, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, glucocorticoid receptors, and hippocampal serotonin 2A receptors.
Ole Kohler, MD, a psychiatrist at Aarhus (Denmark) University, presented highlights of his eye-popping population-based study of more than 872,000 Danes on an SSRI in 1997-2012, more than 113,000 of whom were on a concomitant statin. The key finding: During roughly 3 years of follow-up, the risk of contact with a psychiatric hospital for depression was 36% lower in the group on concomitant SSRI/statin therapy than in those not on a statin (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Aug 1;173[8]:807-15).
He was quick to observe that a study such as this is vulnerable to various forms of confounding. This risk can be mitigated to a considerable extent by careful propensity score matching. Of note, however, none of the three studies that have been conducted with propensity score matching, including his own recent study of nearly 194,000 statin users and an equal number of matched nonusers, showed a difference in risk of depression between statin users and nonusers. All three studies were performed in general populations without known depression, leading Dr. Kohler to conclude that it’s unlikely that statins have a role in preventing depression in nondepressed individuals.
The focus should instead be on the possible role of statins in reducing the risk of depression in patients with cardiometabolic disease – that is, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, or type 2 diabetes – where more than a half-dozen cohort studies, including the Heart and Soul Study, have found that statins have a favorable impact, he added.
Estela Salagre, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Barcelona, has carried out a meta-analysis of the three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of add-on statin therapy in patients on standard therapies for moderate to severe depression published to date. She found that statin therapy was associated with a 27% greater reduction in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, compared with placebo (J Affect Disord. 2016 Aug;200:235-42). Those findings recently were confirmed in a separate meta-analysis by other investigators using different methodologies (J Affect Disord. 2019 Oct 1;257:55-63).
Femke Lamers, PhD, presented evidence based on the nearly 3,000-subject longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety that roughly one-quarter of individuals with major depressive disorder have a distinct subtype of nonmelancholic depression characterized by a clustering of obesity, inflammation, increased appetite, fatigue, hypersomnia, and increased levels of insulin and leptin. She calls it immunometabolic depression. She and her coinvestigators in the international Psychiatric Genomics Consortium have demonstrated that this phenotypic clustering is associated with a shared genetic vulnerability between major depression and obesity (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 1;74[12]:1214-25).
“Major depressive disorder is not a one-size-fits-all disorder. There is an immunometabolic form of depression,” declared Dr. Lamers, an epidemiologist at the University of Amsterdam.
All speakers reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
COPENHAGEN – The tantalizing prospect that statins could be repurposed as adjunctive antidepressant drugs in a defined subgroup of patients with major depression is finally about to undergo rigorous testing.
Several lines of preliminary evidence, including large observational cohort studies as well as three small, short-duration randomized trials, suggest that this might indeed be the case. It’s an extremely attractive possibility, since patients and physicians wish that antidepressant therapy were more effective, statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, and their safety profile is thoroughly established. The expectation is that a definitive answer as to whether repurposing of statins as antidepressants is worthwhile will be provided by the SIMCODE trial, recently approved for funding by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Christian Otte, MD, announced at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
SIMCODE is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to be conducted at eight German academic medical centers. Participants, all of whom must have major depressive disorder and comorbid obesity, will be randomized to simvastatin or placebo on top of standard antidepressant therapy with escitalopram, an SSRI which, like simvastatin, is available as a relatively inexpensive generic, explained Dr. Otte, professor and vice director of the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at Charite University in Berlin.
For Dr. Otte, SIMCODE will close a circle he helped open with his 2012 report from the Heart and Soul Study, a prospective longitudinal study of nearly 1,000 San Francisco Bay Area patients with coronary heart disease who were assessed annually for depressive symptoms for 6 years. The 65% of patients who were on statin therapy, albeit in nonrandomized fashion, had an adjusted 38% lower risk of developing depression (J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 May;73[5]:610-5).
His was one of seven observational studies involving more than 9,000 patients included in a subsequent meta-analysis showing that statin users were 37% less likely to develop depression than were nonusers (J Affect Disord. 2014 May;160:62-7).
All agreed that the verdict isn’t in yet as to statins’ effectiveness as adjunctive antidepressants, and that the subgroup of patients with major depression who are most likely to gain added antidepressive effect from a statin are those with what the speakers variously described as comorbid cardiometabolic disease, immunometabolic disease, or simply, as in SIMCODE, obesity. These are patients with a high degree of systemic inflammation, which often makes their depression less responsive to standard antidepressant therapies. The working hypothesis is that the pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects of statins will result in a greater response to conventional antidepressants.
Animal studies point to multiple potential mechanisms by which statins might have antidepressant efficacy in clinical practice, according to Dr. Otte. Beyond their anti-inflammatory effects, these include the drugs’ documented effects on glutamatergic N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine receptors, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, glucocorticoid receptors, and hippocampal serotonin 2A receptors.
Ole Kohler, MD, a psychiatrist at Aarhus (Denmark) University, presented highlights of his eye-popping population-based study of more than 872,000 Danes on an SSRI in 1997-2012, more than 113,000 of whom were on a concomitant statin. The key finding: During roughly 3 years of follow-up, the risk of contact with a psychiatric hospital for depression was 36% lower in the group on concomitant SSRI/statin therapy than in those not on a statin (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Aug 1;173[8]:807-15).
He was quick to observe that a study such as this is vulnerable to various forms of confounding. This risk can be mitigated to a considerable extent by careful propensity score matching. Of note, however, none of the three studies that have been conducted with propensity score matching, including his own recent study of nearly 194,000 statin users and an equal number of matched nonusers, showed a difference in risk of depression between statin users and nonusers. All three studies were performed in general populations without known depression, leading Dr. Kohler to conclude that it’s unlikely that statins have a role in preventing depression in nondepressed individuals.
The focus should instead be on the possible role of statins in reducing the risk of depression in patients with cardiometabolic disease – that is, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, or type 2 diabetes – where more than a half-dozen cohort studies, including the Heart and Soul Study, have found that statins have a favorable impact, he added.
Estela Salagre, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Barcelona, has carried out a meta-analysis of the three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of add-on statin therapy in patients on standard therapies for moderate to severe depression published to date. She found that statin therapy was associated with a 27% greater reduction in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, compared with placebo (J Affect Disord. 2016 Aug;200:235-42). Those findings recently were confirmed in a separate meta-analysis by other investigators using different methodologies (J Affect Disord. 2019 Oct 1;257:55-63).
Femke Lamers, PhD, presented evidence based on the nearly 3,000-subject longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety that roughly one-quarter of individuals with major depressive disorder have a distinct subtype of nonmelancholic depression characterized by a clustering of obesity, inflammation, increased appetite, fatigue, hypersomnia, and increased levels of insulin and leptin. She calls it immunometabolic depression. She and her coinvestigators in the international Psychiatric Genomics Consortium have demonstrated that this phenotypic clustering is associated with a shared genetic vulnerability between major depression and obesity (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 1;74[12]:1214-25).
“Major depressive disorder is not a one-size-fits-all disorder. There is an immunometabolic form of depression,” declared Dr. Lamers, an epidemiologist at the University of Amsterdam.
All speakers reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
COPENHAGEN – The tantalizing prospect that statins could be repurposed as adjunctive antidepressant drugs in a defined subgroup of patients with major depression is finally about to undergo rigorous testing.
Several lines of preliminary evidence, including large observational cohort studies as well as three small, short-duration randomized trials, suggest that this might indeed be the case. It’s an extremely attractive possibility, since patients and physicians wish that antidepressant therapy were more effective, statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, and their safety profile is thoroughly established. The expectation is that a definitive answer as to whether repurposing of statins as antidepressants is worthwhile will be provided by the SIMCODE trial, recently approved for funding by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Christian Otte, MD, announced at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
SIMCODE is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to be conducted at eight German academic medical centers. Participants, all of whom must have major depressive disorder and comorbid obesity, will be randomized to simvastatin or placebo on top of standard antidepressant therapy with escitalopram, an SSRI which, like simvastatin, is available as a relatively inexpensive generic, explained Dr. Otte, professor and vice director of the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at Charite University in Berlin.
For Dr. Otte, SIMCODE will close a circle he helped open with his 2012 report from the Heart and Soul Study, a prospective longitudinal study of nearly 1,000 San Francisco Bay Area patients with coronary heart disease who were assessed annually for depressive symptoms for 6 years. The 65% of patients who were on statin therapy, albeit in nonrandomized fashion, had an adjusted 38% lower risk of developing depression (J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 May;73[5]:610-5).
His was one of seven observational studies involving more than 9,000 patients included in a subsequent meta-analysis showing that statin users were 37% less likely to develop depression than were nonusers (J Affect Disord. 2014 May;160:62-7).
All agreed that the verdict isn’t in yet as to statins’ effectiveness as adjunctive antidepressants, and that the subgroup of patients with major depression who are most likely to gain added antidepressive effect from a statin are those with what the speakers variously described as comorbid cardiometabolic disease, immunometabolic disease, or simply, as in SIMCODE, obesity. These are patients with a high degree of systemic inflammation, which often makes their depression less responsive to standard antidepressant therapies. The working hypothesis is that the pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects of statins will result in a greater response to conventional antidepressants.
Animal studies point to multiple potential mechanisms by which statins might have antidepressant efficacy in clinical practice, according to Dr. Otte. Beyond their anti-inflammatory effects, these include the drugs’ documented effects on glutamatergic N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine receptors, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, glucocorticoid receptors, and hippocampal serotonin 2A receptors.
Ole Kohler, MD, a psychiatrist at Aarhus (Denmark) University, presented highlights of his eye-popping population-based study of more than 872,000 Danes on an SSRI in 1997-2012, more than 113,000 of whom were on a concomitant statin. The key finding: During roughly 3 years of follow-up, the risk of contact with a psychiatric hospital for depression was 36% lower in the group on concomitant SSRI/statin therapy than in those not on a statin (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Aug 1;173[8]:807-15).
He was quick to observe that a study such as this is vulnerable to various forms of confounding. This risk can be mitigated to a considerable extent by careful propensity score matching. Of note, however, none of the three studies that have been conducted with propensity score matching, including his own recent study of nearly 194,000 statin users and an equal number of matched nonusers, showed a difference in risk of depression between statin users and nonusers. All three studies were performed in general populations without known depression, leading Dr. Kohler to conclude that it’s unlikely that statins have a role in preventing depression in nondepressed individuals.
The focus should instead be on the possible role of statins in reducing the risk of depression in patients with cardiometabolic disease – that is, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, or type 2 diabetes – where more than a half-dozen cohort studies, including the Heart and Soul Study, have found that statins have a favorable impact, he added.
Estela Salagre, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Barcelona, has carried out a meta-analysis of the three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of add-on statin therapy in patients on standard therapies for moderate to severe depression published to date. She found that statin therapy was associated with a 27% greater reduction in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, compared with placebo (J Affect Disord. 2016 Aug;200:235-42). Those findings recently were confirmed in a separate meta-analysis by other investigators using different methodologies (J Affect Disord. 2019 Oct 1;257:55-63).
Femke Lamers, PhD, presented evidence based on the nearly 3,000-subject longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety that roughly one-quarter of individuals with major depressive disorder have a distinct subtype of nonmelancholic depression characterized by a clustering of obesity, inflammation, increased appetite, fatigue, hypersomnia, and increased levels of insulin and leptin. She calls it immunometabolic depression. She and her coinvestigators in the international Psychiatric Genomics Consortium have demonstrated that this phenotypic clustering is associated with a shared genetic vulnerability between major depression and obesity (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 1;74[12]:1214-25).
“Major depressive disorder is not a one-size-fits-all disorder. There is an immunometabolic form of depression,” declared Dr. Lamers, an epidemiologist at the University of Amsterdam.
All speakers reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM ECNP 2019
Exercise intervention reverses functional decline in elderly patients during acute hospitalization
Background: Acute hospitalization has been associated with functional and cognitive decline, particularly in elderly adults. This decline is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.
Study design: Single-center, single-blind, randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Acute care unit in a tertiary public hospital in Navarra, Spain.
Synopsis: 370 patients aged 75 years or older who were hospitalized in an acute care unit received either individualized moderate intensity exercise regimens (focusing on resistance, balance, and walking) or standard hospital care (with physical rehabilitation as appropriate). Patients who received standard care had a decrease in functional capacity at discharge when compared with their baseline function (mean change of –5.0 points on the Barthel Index of Independence; 95% confidence interval, –6.8 to –3.2 points), while those who received the exercise intervention had no functional decline from baseline on discharge (mean change of 1.9 points; 95% CI, 0.2-3.7 points).
Patients who received the exercise intervention had significantly higher scores on functional and cognitive assessments at discharge, compared with patients who received standard hospital care alone. Specifically, the study demonstrated a mean increase of 2.2 points (95% CI, 1.7-2.6 points) on the Short Physical Performance Battery, 6.9 points (95% CI, 4.4-9.5 points) on the Barthel Index, and 1.8 points (95% CI, 1.3-2.3 points) on a cognitive assessment, compared with those who received standard hospital care.
Bottom line: An individualized, multicomponent exercise intervention can help reverse functional and cognitive decline associated with acute hospitalization in elderly patients.
Citation: Martinez-Velilla N et al. Effect of exercise intervention on functional decline in very elderly adults during acute hospitalization. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(1):28-36.
Dr. Chace is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Acute hospitalization has been associated with functional and cognitive decline, particularly in elderly adults. This decline is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.
Study design: Single-center, single-blind, randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Acute care unit in a tertiary public hospital in Navarra, Spain.
Synopsis: 370 patients aged 75 years or older who were hospitalized in an acute care unit received either individualized moderate intensity exercise regimens (focusing on resistance, balance, and walking) or standard hospital care (with physical rehabilitation as appropriate). Patients who received standard care had a decrease in functional capacity at discharge when compared with their baseline function (mean change of –5.0 points on the Barthel Index of Independence; 95% confidence interval, –6.8 to –3.2 points), while those who received the exercise intervention had no functional decline from baseline on discharge (mean change of 1.9 points; 95% CI, 0.2-3.7 points).
Patients who received the exercise intervention had significantly higher scores on functional and cognitive assessments at discharge, compared with patients who received standard hospital care alone. Specifically, the study demonstrated a mean increase of 2.2 points (95% CI, 1.7-2.6 points) on the Short Physical Performance Battery, 6.9 points (95% CI, 4.4-9.5 points) on the Barthel Index, and 1.8 points (95% CI, 1.3-2.3 points) on a cognitive assessment, compared with those who received standard hospital care.
Bottom line: An individualized, multicomponent exercise intervention can help reverse functional and cognitive decline associated with acute hospitalization in elderly patients.
Citation: Martinez-Velilla N et al. Effect of exercise intervention on functional decline in very elderly adults during acute hospitalization. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(1):28-36.
Dr. Chace is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Acute hospitalization has been associated with functional and cognitive decline, particularly in elderly adults. This decline is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.
Study design: Single-center, single-blind, randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Acute care unit in a tertiary public hospital in Navarra, Spain.
Synopsis: 370 patients aged 75 years or older who were hospitalized in an acute care unit received either individualized moderate intensity exercise regimens (focusing on resistance, balance, and walking) or standard hospital care (with physical rehabilitation as appropriate). Patients who received standard care had a decrease in functional capacity at discharge when compared with their baseline function (mean change of –5.0 points on the Barthel Index of Independence; 95% confidence interval, –6.8 to –3.2 points), while those who received the exercise intervention had no functional decline from baseline on discharge (mean change of 1.9 points; 95% CI, 0.2-3.7 points).
Patients who received the exercise intervention had significantly higher scores on functional and cognitive assessments at discharge, compared with patients who received standard hospital care alone. Specifically, the study demonstrated a mean increase of 2.2 points (95% CI, 1.7-2.6 points) on the Short Physical Performance Battery, 6.9 points (95% CI, 4.4-9.5 points) on the Barthel Index, and 1.8 points (95% CI, 1.3-2.3 points) on a cognitive assessment, compared with those who received standard hospital care.
Bottom line: An individualized, multicomponent exercise intervention can help reverse functional and cognitive decline associated with acute hospitalization in elderly patients.
Citation: Martinez-Velilla N et al. Effect of exercise intervention on functional decline in very elderly adults during acute hospitalization. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(1):28-36.
Dr. Chace is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Zulresso: Hope and lingering questions
The last decade has brought increasing awareness of the need to effectively screen for postpartum depression, with a majority of states across the country now having some sort of formal program by which women are screened for mood disorder during the postnatal period, typically with scales such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).
In addition to effective screening is a pressing need for effective referral networks of clinicians who have both the expertise and time to manage the 10%-15% of women who have been identified and who suffer from postpartum psychiatric disorders – both postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Several studies have suggested that only a small percentage of postpartum women who score with clinically significant level of depressive symptoms actually get to a clinician or, if they do get to a clinician, receive adequate treatment restoring their emotional well-being (J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-200).
Zulresso (brexanolone), a novel new antidepressant medication which recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of postpartum depression, is a first-in-class molecule to get such approval. Zulresso is a neurosteroid, an analogue of allopregnanolone and a GABAA receptor–positive allosteric modulator, a primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain.
There is every reason to believe that, as a class, this group of neurosteroid molecules are effective in treating depression in other populations aside from women with postpartum depression and hence may not be specific to the postpartum period. For example, recent presentations of preliminary data suggest other neurosteroids such as zuranolone (an oral medication also developed by Sage Therapeutics) is effective for both men and women who have major depression in addition to women suffering from postpartum depression.
Zulresso is approved through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy–restricted program and, per that protocol, needs to be administered by a health care provider in a recognized health care setting intravenously over 2.5 days (60 hours). Because of concerns regarding increased sedation, continuous pulse oximetry is required, and this is outlined in a boxed warning in the prescribing information. Zulresso has been classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a Schedule IV injection and is subject to the prescribing regulations for a controlled substance.
Since Zulresso’s approval, my colleagues and I at the Center for Women’s Mental Health have received numerous queries from patients and colleagues about our clinical impression of this new molecule with a different mechanism of action – a welcome addition to the antidepressant pharmacopeia. The question posed to us essentially is: Where does brexanolone fit into our algorithm for treating women who suffer from postpartum depression? And frequently, the follow-up query is: Because subjects in the clinical trials for this medication included women who had onset of depression either late in pregnancy or during the postpartum period, how specific is brexanolone with respect to being a targeted therapy for postpartum depression, compared with depression encountered in other clinical settings.
What clearly can be stated is that Zulresso has a rapid onset of action and was demonstrated across clinical trials to have sustained benefit up to 30 days after IV administration. The question is whether patients have sustained benefit after 30 days or if this is a medicine to be considered as a “bridge” to other treatment. Data answering that critical clinical question are unavailable at this time. From a clinical standpoint, do patients receive this treatment and get sent home on antidepressants, as we would for patients who receive ECT, often discharging them with prophylactic antidepressants to sustain the benefit of the treatment? Or do patients receive this new medicine with the clinician providing close follow-up, assuming a wait-and-see approach? Because data informing the answer to that question are not available, this decision will be made empirically, frequently factoring in the patient’s past clinical history where presumably more liberal use of antidepressant immediately after the administration of Zulresso will be pursued in those with histories of highly recurrent major depression.
So where might this new medicine fit into the treatment of postpartum depression of moderate severity, or modest to moderate severity? It should be kept in mind that for patients with mild to moderate postpartum depression, there are data supporting the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT frequently is pursued with concurrent mobilization of substantial social support with good outcomes. In patients with more severe postpartum depression, there are data supporting the use of antidepressants, and in these patients as well, use of established support from the ever-growing network of community-based support groups and services can be particularly helpful. It is unlikely that Zulresso will be a first-line medication for the treatment of postpartum depression, but it may be particularly appropriate for patients with severe illness who have not responded to other interventions.
Other practical considerations regarding use of Zulresso include the requirement that the medicine be administered in hospitals that have established clinical infrastructure to accommodate this particular population of patients and where pharmacists and other relevant parties in hospitals have accepted the medicine into its drug formulary. While coverage by various insurance policies may vary, the cost of this new medication is substantial, between $24,000 and $34,000 per treatment, according to reports.
Where Zulresso fits into the pharmacopeia for treating postpartum depression may fall well beyond the issues of efficacy. Given all of the attention to this first-in-class medicine, Zulresso has reinforced the growing interest in the substantial prevalence and the morbidity associated with postpartum depression. It is hard to imagine Zulresso being used in cases of more mild to moderate depression, in which there is nonemergent opportunity to pursue options that do not require a new mom to absent herself from homelife with a newborn. However, in picking cases of severe new onset or recurrence of depression in postpartum women, the rapid onset of benefit that was noted within days could be an extraordinary relief and be the beginning of a road to wellness for some women.
Ultimately, the collaboration of patients with their doctors, the realities of cost, and the acceptability of use in various clinical settings will determine how Zulresso is incorporated into seeking treatment to mitigate the suffering associated with postpartum depression. We at the Center for Women’s Mental Health are interested in user experience with respect to this medicine and welcome comments from both patients and their doctors at [email protected].
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. This center was an investigator site for one of the studies supported by Sage Therapeutics, the manufacturer of Zulresso. Dr. Cohen is also the Edmund and Carroll Carpenter professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
The last decade has brought increasing awareness of the need to effectively screen for postpartum depression, with a majority of states across the country now having some sort of formal program by which women are screened for mood disorder during the postnatal period, typically with scales such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).
In addition to effective screening is a pressing need for effective referral networks of clinicians who have both the expertise and time to manage the 10%-15% of women who have been identified and who suffer from postpartum psychiatric disorders – both postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Several studies have suggested that only a small percentage of postpartum women who score with clinically significant level of depressive symptoms actually get to a clinician or, if they do get to a clinician, receive adequate treatment restoring their emotional well-being (J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-200).
Zulresso (brexanolone), a novel new antidepressant medication which recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of postpartum depression, is a first-in-class molecule to get such approval. Zulresso is a neurosteroid, an analogue of allopregnanolone and a GABAA receptor–positive allosteric modulator, a primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain.
There is every reason to believe that, as a class, this group of neurosteroid molecules are effective in treating depression in other populations aside from women with postpartum depression and hence may not be specific to the postpartum period. For example, recent presentations of preliminary data suggest other neurosteroids such as zuranolone (an oral medication also developed by Sage Therapeutics) is effective for both men and women who have major depression in addition to women suffering from postpartum depression.
Zulresso is approved through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy–restricted program and, per that protocol, needs to be administered by a health care provider in a recognized health care setting intravenously over 2.5 days (60 hours). Because of concerns regarding increased sedation, continuous pulse oximetry is required, and this is outlined in a boxed warning in the prescribing information. Zulresso has been classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a Schedule IV injection and is subject to the prescribing regulations for a controlled substance.
Since Zulresso’s approval, my colleagues and I at the Center for Women’s Mental Health have received numerous queries from patients and colleagues about our clinical impression of this new molecule with a different mechanism of action – a welcome addition to the antidepressant pharmacopeia. The question posed to us essentially is: Where does brexanolone fit into our algorithm for treating women who suffer from postpartum depression? And frequently, the follow-up query is: Because subjects in the clinical trials for this medication included women who had onset of depression either late in pregnancy or during the postpartum period, how specific is brexanolone with respect to being a targeted therapy for postpartum depression, compared with depression encountered in other clinical settings.
What clearly can be stated is that Zulresso has a rapid onset of action and was demonstrated across clinical trials to have sustained benefit up to 30 days after IV administration. The question is whether patients have sustained benefit after 30 days or if this is a medicine to be considered as a “bridge” to other treatment. Data answering that critical clinical question are unavailable at this time. From a clinical standpoint, do patients receive this treatment and get sent home on antidepressants, as we would for patients who receive ECT, often discharging them with prophylactic antidepressants to sustain the benefit of the treatment? Or do patients receive this new medicine with the clinician providing close follow-up, assuming a wait-and-see approach? Because data informing the answer to that question are not available, this decision will be made empirically, frequently factoring in the patient’s past clinical history where presumably more liberal use of antidepressant immediately after the administration of Zulresso will be pursued in those with histories of highly recurrent major depression.
So where might this new medicine fit into the treatment of postpartum depression of moderate severity, or modest to moderate severity? It should be kept in mind that for patients with mild to moderate postpartum depression, there are data supporting the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT frequently is pursued with concurrent mobilization of substantial social support with good outcomes. In patients with more severe postpartum depression, there are data supporting the use of antidepressants, and in these patients as well, use of established support from the ever-growing network of community-based support groups and services can be particularly helpful. It is unlikely that Zulresso will be a first-line medication for the treatment of postpartum depression, but it may be particularly appropriate for patients with severe illness who have not responded to other interventions.
Other practical considerations regarding use of Zulresso include the requirement that the medicine be administered in hospitals that have established clinical infrastructure to accommodate this particular population of patients and where pharmacists and other relevant parties in hospitals have accepted the medicine into its drug formulary. While coverage by various insurance policies may vary, the cost of this new medication is substantial, between $24,000 and $34,000 per treatment, according to reports.
Where Zulresso fits into the pharmacopeia for treating postpartum depression may fall well beyond the issues of efficacy. Given all of the attention to this first-in-class medicine, Zulresso has reinforced the growing interest in the substantial prevalence and the morbidity associated with postpartum depression. It is hard to imagine Zulresso being used in cases of more mild to moderate depression, in which there is nonemergent opportunity to pursue options that do not require a new mom to absent herself from homelife with a newborn. However, in picking cases of severe new onset or recurrence of depression in postpartum women, the rapid onset of benefit that was noted within days could be an extraordinary relief and be the beginning of a road to wellness for some women.
Ultimately, the collaboration of patients with their doctors, the realities of cost, and the acceptability of use in various clinical settings will determine how Zulresso is incorporated into seeking treatment to mitigate the suffering associated with postpartum depression. We at the Center for Women’s Mental Health are interested in user experience with respect to this medicine and welcome comments from both patients and their doctors at [email protected].
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. This center was an investigator site for one of the studies supported by Sage Therapeutics, the manufacturer of Zulresso. Dr. Cohen is also the Edmund and Carroll Carpenter professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
The last decade has brought increasing awareness of the need to effectively screen for postpartum depression, with a majority of states across the country now having some sort of formal program by which women are screened for mood disorder during the postnatal period, typically with scales such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).
In addition to effective screening is a pressing need for effective referral networks of clinicians who have both the expertise and time to manage the 10%-15% of women who have been identified and who suffer from postpartum psychiatric disorders – both postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Several studies have suggested that only a small percentage of postpartum women who score with clinically significant level of depressive symptoms actually get to a clinician or, if they do get to a clinician, receive adequate treatment restoring their emotional well-being (J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-200).
Zulresso (brexanolone), a novel new antidepressant medication which recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of postpartum depression, is a first-in-class molecule to get such approval. Zulresso is a neurosteroid, an analogue of allopregnanolone and a GABAA receptor–positive allosteric modulator, a primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain.
There is every reason to believe that, as a class, this group of neurosteroid molecules are effective in treating depression in other populations aside from women with postpartum depression and hence may not be specific to the postpartum period. For example, recent presentations of preliminary data suggest other neurosteroids such as zuranolone (an oral medication also developed by Sage Therapeutics) is effective for both men and women who have major depression in addition to women suffering from postpartum depression.
Zulresso is approved through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy–restricted program and, per that protocol, needs to be administered by a health care provider in a recognized health care setting intravenously over 2.5 days (60 hours). Because of concerns regarding increased sedation, continuous pulse oximetry is required, and this is outlined in a boxed warning in the prescribing information. Zulresso has been classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a Schedule IV injection and is subject to the prescribing regulations for a controlled substance.
Since Zulresso’s approval, my colleagues and I at the Center for Women’s Mental Health have received numerous queries from patients and colleagues about our clinical impression of this new molecule with a different mechanism of action – a welcome addition to the antidepressant pharmacopeia. The question posed to us essentially is: Where does brexanolone fit into our algorithm for treating women who suffer from postpartum depression? And frequently, the follow-up query is: Because subjects in the clinical trials for this medication included women who had onset of depression either late in pregnancy or during the postpartum period, how specific is brexanolone with respect to being a targeted therapy for postpartum depression, compared with depression encountered in other clinical settings.
What clearly can be stated is that Zulresso has a rapid onset of action and was demonstrated across clinical trials to have sustained benefit up to 30 days after IV administration. The question is whether patients have sustained benefit after 30 days or if this is a medicine to be considered as a “bridge” to other treatment. Data answering that critical clinical question are unavailable at this time. From a clinical standpoint, do patients receive this treatment and get sent home on antidepressants, as we would for patients who receive ECT, often discharging them with prophylactic antidepressants to sustain the benefit of the treatment? Or do patients receive this new medicine with the clinician providing close follow-up, assuming a wait-and-see approach? Because data informing the answer to that question are not available, this decision will be made empirically, frequently factoring in the patient’s past clinical history where presumably more liberal use of antidepressant immediately after the administration of Zulresso will be pursued in those with histories of highly recurrent major depression.
So where might this new medicine fit into the treatment of postpartum depression of moderate severity, or modest to moderate severity? It should be kept in mind that for patients with mild to moderate postpartum depression, there are data supporting the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT frequently is pursued with concurrent mobilization of substantial social support with good outcomes. In patients with more severe postpartum depression, there are data supporting the use of antidepressants, and in these patients as well, use of established support from the ever-growing network of community-based support groups and services can be particularly helpful. It is unlikely that Zulresso will be a first-line medication for the treatment of postpartum depression, but it may be particularly appropriate for patients with severe illness who have not responded to other interventions.
Other practical considerations regarding use of Zulresso include the requirement that the medicine be administered in hospitals that have established clinical infrastructure to accommodate this particular population of patients and where pharmacists and other relevant parties in hospitals have accepted the medicine into its drug formulary. While coverage by various insurance policies may vary, the cost of this new medication is substantial, between $24,000 and $34,000 per treatment, according to reports.
Where Zulresso fits into the pharmacopeia for treating postpartum depression may fall well beyond the issues of efficacy. Given all of the attention to this first-in-class medicine, Zulresso has reinforced the growing interest in the substantial prevalence and the morbidity associated with postpartum depression. It is hard to imagine Zulresso being used in cases of more mild to moderate depression, in which there is nonemergent opportunity to pursue options that do not require a new mom to absent herself from homelife with a newborn. However, in picking cases of severe new onset or recurrence of depression in postpartum women, the rapid onset of benefit that was noted within days could be an extraordinary relief and be the beginning of a road to wellness for some women.
Ultimately, the collaboration of patients with their doctors, the realities of cost, and the acceptability of use in various clinical settings will determine how Zulresso is incorporated into seeking treatment to mitigate the suffering associated with postpartum depression. We at the Center for Women’s Mental Health are interested in user experience with respect to this medicine and welcome comments from both patients and their doctors at [email protected].
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. This center was an investigator site for one of the studies supported by Sage Therapeutics, the manufacturer of Zulresso. Dr. Cohen is also the Edmund and Carroll Carpenter professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
Expert shares tips for laser hair removal prior to gender reassignment surgery
SAN DIEGO – prior to undergoing the procedures.
“In the last year, in terms of hair removal, this has been the biggest change in my practice,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium.
R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Melanie Grossman, MD, who practices in New York City, developed laser hair removal in the 1990s, and today laser hair removal stands as the most common laser treatment in medicine, said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He described it as “safe and effective in skilled hands,” requiring about six treatments. Indications are for hypertrichosis, hirsutism (sometimes in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome), pseudofolliculitis barbae, pilonidal cysts, and gender reassignment surgery.
Laser hair removal works by the extended theory of selective photothermolysis. “You’re targeting by proxy,” Dr. Avram explained. “The laser targets eumelanin in darkly pigmented hairs, with the secondary target being the follicular stem cells. Pigment is a prerequisite for effective treatment. So if there is no pigment in the hair, with current technology, it’s not going to work.”
He advises clinicians to avoid a cookbook approach to fluences when performing laser hair removal. Even though higher fluences have been correlated with greater permanent hair removal, they are also more likely to cause unexpected side effects. “The recommended treatment fluences are often provided with each individual laser device for nonexperienced operators, but I would not recommend doing that,” he said. “You want to evaluate for the desired clinical endpoint of perifollicular erythema and edema. The highest possible tolerated fluence, which yields this endpoint, without any adverse effects, is often the best fluence for treatment.” In 2016, Dr. Avram and his colleagues published a paper that focuses on desirable and therapeutic endpoints when performing laser and light treatments (J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74[5]:821-33).
The best candidates for laser hair removal are those with light skin color and dark hair. “The more pigment that’s in the hair, the more it’s going to absorb the energy,” he said. Coarse, thick hair responds better than thin vellus hairs, and blond, gray hairs do not respond. A new silver nanoparticle technology is being developed that may improve efficacy for people with blond or gray hair in the future. “Modest initial data showed that it works, but it requires several treatments,” Dr. Avram said.
A past president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Avram went on to note that laser hair removal is often delegated to nonphysicians and is the most common cause of lawsuits for laser injury. “The rates of lawsuits rise dramatically when delegated to nonphysicians,” he said. “They even rise higher when performed by nonphysicians without supervision such as in medi-spas. Some of the side effects when performed by nonexperienced users can include temporary hyperpigmentation and longterm hypopigmentation.”
One of his clinical pearls is to never perform laser hair removal on suntanned individuals (“you will get obvious, bizarre-appearing hypopigmentation,” he said) and to exercise caution in patients with darker skin types. “If you do a test spot, give it a couple of weeks to see if hyperpigmentation develops,” he advised. “However, their sun exposure may change, and the area you treat with a test spot may be different than the entire area you intend to treat, so don’t think that a test spot is going to guarantee a particular result. You also have to be aware of paradoxical hypertrichosis, where you get more hair growth rather than less.”
Laser hair removal is mandatory prior to neovaginoplasty surgery. Surgeons use skin from the penile shaft and the midscrotum to create the new vagina, Dr. Avram said, so all hair must be removed prior to surgery so that the inside of the new vagina will be free of hair.
“You can use laser or electrolysis for this,” he said. “Electrolysis takes a lot more treatments and is going to be much more tedious than laser hair removal.” Areas to be targeted include all hair on the scrotum and all hair on the penile shaft, plus one inch around the base. “In the perineum, you want to remove hair from the bottom of the scrotum to one inch above the anus in order to clear a 2.5-inch-wide strip,” he said.
For a phalloplasty, surgeons use skin from the underside of arm to create a urethra. This means that all hair should be removed from the crease of the wrist to 15-18 cm up the arm. “You treat the underside of the arm at 4 cm distally and 5.5 cm proximally,” Dr. Avram said. “It should be 15-18 cm in length, and you cannot have any hair that remains within the new urethra.”
To create a penis, surgeons use skin from the prone arm and around. This requires removing hair at 10 cm distally, 13 cm proximally, and 14 cm in length.
Dr. Avram emphasized the importance of patient and staff education and use of preferred pronouns when performing laser hair removal on patients prior to their gender reassignment surgery. “It requires an explanation that this requires multiple treatments and will not remove all hair,” he said. “You can work with an experienced electrologist for nonresponsive hair.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, Soliton, and Zalea. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis, Invasix, and Zalea and intellectual property rights with Cytrellis.
SAN DIEGO – prior to undergoing the procedures.
“In the last year, in terms of hair removal, this has been the biggest change in my practice,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium.
R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Melanie Grossman, MD, who practices in New York City, developed laser hair removal in the 1990s, and today laser hair removal stands as the most common laser treatment in medicine, said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He described it as “safe and effective in skilled hands,” requiring about six treatments. Indications are for hypertrichosis, hirsutism (sometimes in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome), pseudofolliculitis barbae, pilonidal cysts, and gender reassignment surgery.
Laser hair removal works by the extended theory of selective photothermolysis. “You’re targeting by proxy,” Dr. Avram explained. “The laser targets eumelanin in darkly pigmented hairs, with the secondary target being the follicular stem cells. Pigment is a prerequisite for effective treatment. So if there is no pigment in the hair, with current technology, it’s not going to work.”
He advises clinicians to avoid a cookbook approach to fluences when performing laser hair removal. Even though higher fluences have been correlated with greater permanent hair removal, they are also more likely to cause unexpected side effects. “The recommended treatment fluences are often provided with each individual laser device for nonexperienced operators, but I would not recommend doing that,” he said. “You want to evaluate for the desired clinical endpoint of perifollicular erythema and edema. The highest possible tolerated fluence, which yields this endpoint, without any adverse effects, is often the best fluence for treatment.” In 2016, Dr. Avram and his colleagues published a paper that focuses on desirable and therapeutic endpoints when performing laser and light treatments (J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74[5]:821-33).
The best candidates for laser hair removal are those with light skin color and dark hair. “The more pigment that’s in the hair, the more it’s going to absorb the energy,” he said. Coarse, thick hair responds better than thin vellus hairs, and blond, gray hairs do not respond. A new silver nanoparticle technology is being developed that may improve efficacy for people with blond or gray hair in the future. “Modest initial data showed that it works, but it requires several treatments,” Dr. Avram said.
A past president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Avram went on to note that laser hair removal is often delegated to nonphysicians and is the most common cause of lawsuits for laser injury. “The rates of lawsuits rise dramatically when delegated to nonphysicians,” he said. “They even rise higher when performed by nonphysicians without supervision such as in medi-spas. Some of the side effects when performed by nonexperienced users can include temporary hyperpigmentation and longterm hypopigmentation.”
One of his clinical pearls is to never perform laser hair removal on suntanned individuals (“you will get obvious, bizarre-appearing hypopigmentation,” he said) and to exercise caution in patients with darker skin types. “If you do a test spot, give it a couple of weeks to see if hyperpigmentation develops,” he advised. “However, their sun exposure may change, and the area you treat with a test spot may be different than the entire area you intend to treat, so don’t think that a test spot is going to guarantee a particular result. You also have to be aware of paradoxical hypertrichosis, where you get more hair growth rather than less.”
Laser hair removal is mandatory prior to neovaginoplasty surgery. Surgeons use skin from the penile shaft and the midscrotum to create the new vagina, Dr. Avram said, so all hair must be removed prior to surgery so that the inside of the new vagina will be free of hair.
“You can use laser or electrolysis for this,” he said. “Electrolysis takes a lot more treatments and is going to be much more tedious than laser hair removal.” Areas to be targeted include all hair on the scrotum and all hair on the penile shaft, plus one inch around the base. “In the perineum, you want to remove hair from the bottom of the scrotum to one inch above the anus in order to clear a 2.5-inch-wide strip,” he said.
For a phalloplasty, surgeons use skin from the underside of arm to create a urethra. This means that all hair should be removed from the crease of the wrist to 15-18 cm up the arm. “You treat the underside of the arm at 4 cm distally and 5.5 cm proximally,” Dr. Avram said. “It should be 15-18 cm in length, and you cannot have any hair that remains within the new urethra.”
To create a penis, surgeons use skin from the prone arm and around. This requires removing hair at 10 cm distally, 13 cm proximally, and 14 cm in length.
Dr. Avram emphasized the importance of patient and staff education and use of preferred pronouns when performing laser hair removal on patients prior to their gender reassignment surgery. “It requires an explanation that this requires multiple treatments and will not remove all hair,” he said. “You can work with an experienced electrologist for nonresponsive hair.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, Soliton, and Zalea. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis, Invasix, and Zalea and intellectual property rights with Cytrellis.
SAN DIEGO – prior to undergoing the procedures.
“In the last year, in terms of hair removal, this has been the biggest change in my practice,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium.
R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Melanie Grossman, MD, who practices in New York City, developed laser hair removal in the 1990s, and today laser hair removal stands as the most common laser treatment in medicine, said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He described it as “safe and effective in skilled hands,” requiring about six treatments. Indications are for hypertrichosis, hirsutism (sometimes in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome), pseudofolliculitis barbae, pilonidal cysts, and gender reassignment surgery.
Laser hair removal works by the extended theory of selective photothermolysis. “You’re targeting by proxy,” Dr. Avram explained. “The laser targets eumelanin in darkly pigmented hairs, with the secondary target being the follicular stem cells. Pigment is a prerequisite for effective treatment. So if there is no pigment in the hair, with current technology, it’s not going to work.”
He advises clinicians to avoid a cookbook approach to fluences when performing laser hair removal. Even though higher fluences have been correlated with greater permanent hair removal, they are also more likely to cause unexpected side effects. “The recommended treatment fluences are often provided with each individual laser device for nonexperienced operators, but I would not recommend doing that,” he said. “You want to evaluate for the desired clinical endpoint of perifollicular erythema and edema. The highest possible tolerated fluence, which yields this endpoint, without any adverse effects, is often the best fluence for treatment.” In 2016, Dr. Avram and his colleagues published a paper that focuses on desirable and therapeutic endpoints when performing laser and light treatments (J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74[5]:821-33).
The best candidates for laser hair removal are those with light skin color and dark hair. “The more pigment that’s in the hair, the more it’s going to absorb the energy,” he said. Coarse, thick hair responds better than thin vellus hairs, and blond, gray hairs do not respond. A new silver nanoparticle technology is being developed that may improve efficacy for people with blond or gray hair in the future. “Modest initial data showed that it works, but it requires several treatments,” Dr. Avram said.
A past president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Avram went on to note that laser hair removal is often delegated to nonphysicians and is the most common cause of lawsuits for laser injury. “The rates of lawsuits rise dramatically when delegated to nonphysicians,” he said. “They even rise higher when performed by nonphysicians without supervision such as in medi-spas. Some of the side effects when performed by nonexperienced users can include temporary hyperpigmentation and longterm hypopigmentation.”
One of his clinical pearls is to never perform laser hair removal on suntanned individuals (“you will get obvious, bizarre-appearing hypopigmentation,” he said) and to exercise caution in patients with darker skin types. “If you do a test spot, give it a couple of weeks to see if hyperpigmentation develops,” he advised. “However, their sun exposure may change, and the area you treat with a test spot may be different than the entire area you intend to treat, so don’t think that a test spot is going to guarantee a particular result. You also have to be aware of paradoxical hypertrichosis, where you get more hair growth rather than less.”
Laser hair removal is mandatory prior to neovaginoplasty surgery. Surgeons use skin from the penile shaft and the midscrotum to create the new vagina, Dr. Avram said, so all hair must be removed prior to surgery so that the inside of the new vagina will be free of hair.
“You can use laser or electrolysis for this,” he said. “Electrolysis takes a lot more treatments and is going to be much more tedious than laser hair removal.” Areas to be targeted include all hair on the scrotum and all hair on the penile shaft, plus one inch around the base. “In the perineum, you want to remove hair from the bottom of the scrotum to one inch above the anus in order to clear a 2.5-inch-wide strip,” he said.
For a phalloplasty, surgeons use skin from the underside of arm to create a urethra. This means that all hair should be removed from the crease of the wrist to 15-18 cm up the arm. “You treat the underside of the arm at 4 cm distally and 5.5 cm proximally,” Dr. Avram said. “It should be 15-18 cm in length, and you cannot have any hair that remains within the new urethra.”
To create a penis, surgeons use skin from the prone arm and around. This requires removing hair at 10 cm distally, 13 cm proximally, and 14 cm in length.
Dr. Avram emphasized the importance of patient and staff education and use of preferred pronouns when performing laser hair removal on patients prior to their gender reassignment surgery. “It requires an explanation that this requires multiple treatments and will not remove all hair,” he said. “You can work with an experienced electrologist for nonresponsive hair.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, Soliton, and Zalea. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis, Invasix, and Zalea and intellectual property rights with Cytrellis.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM MOA 2019
Two uveitis treatment options yield similar success
in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial.
“The findings of this trial have implications for clinical practice because they provide scientific justification that mycophenolate mofetil is not more effective than methotrexate as a corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy for uveitis,” wrote S.R. Rathinam, MD, PhD, of Aravind Eye Hospital and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India, and colleagues.
Although corticosteroid therapy is the first-line treatment for uveitis, adverse effects limit long-term use. Mycophenolate mofetil and methotrexate are options for corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy for uveitis, but their effectiveness has not been compared until the current study, they said.
In the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) trial published Sept. 10 in JAMA, the researchers randomized 216 adults with uveitis (a total of 407 eyes with uveitis) to 25 mg of weekly oral methotrexate or 1.5 g of twice-daily oral mycophenolate mofetil at nine referral eye care centers in India, the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico; the investigators were masked to the treatment assignment.
Patients with treatment success continued taking their randomized medication for another 6 months. If treatment failed, patients switched to the other antimetabolite with another 6-month follow-up. Overall, 84%-93% in each group had bilateral uveitis. Forty-six patients (21%) had intermediate uveitis only or anterior uveitis and intermediate uveitis, and 170 patients (79%) had posterior uveitis or panuveitis. The median age of the patients was 36 years in the methotrexate group and 41 years in the mycophenolate group; other demographic characteristics were similar between the groups.
Overall, 64 patients given methotrexate (67%) and 56 of those given mycophenolate (57%) achieved treatment success at 6 months. Treatment success included inflammation control defined as “less than or equal to 0.5+ anterior chamber cells by Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria, less than or equal to 0.5+ vitreous haze clinical grading using the National Eye Institute scale, and no active retinal or choroidal lesions,” as well as needing no more than 7.5 mg of prednisone daily and two drops or less of prednisolone acetate 1% per day, and reporting no intolerability or safety concerns requiring study discontinuation.
Adverse events were similar between the groups. The most common nonserious adverse events were fatigue and headaches, and the most common nonserious laboratory adverse event was elevated liver enzymes. Fourteen serious adverse events occurred during the study period; three in the methotrexate group and two in the mycophenolate group were deemed drug related and all were elevated liver function tests.
The study findings had several limitations, including lack of masking of the patients to the medication and an inability to compare between types of uveitis, the researchers noted. Avenues for further research include whether one of the drugs is more effective based on the uveitis subtype, they added.
The study was supported in part by the National Eye Institute and study drugs were provided by the University of California San Francisco Pharmacy. Dr. Rathinam disclosed grants from Aravind Eye Hospital, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Novartis, Novotech, and Bayer.
SOURCE: Rathinam SR et al. JAMA. 2019;322(10):936-45. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.12618.
in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial.
“The findings of this trial have implications for clinical practice because they provide scientific justification that mycophenolate mofetil is not more effective than methotrexate as a corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy for uveitis,” wrote S.R. Rathinam, MD, PhD, of Aravind Eye Hospital and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India, and colleagues.
Although corticosteroid therapy is the first-line treatment for uveitis, adverse effects limit long-term use. Mycophenolate mofetil and methotrexate are options for corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy for uveitis, but their effectiveness has not been compared until the current study, they said.
In the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) trial published Sept. 10 in JAMA, the researchers randomized 216 adults with uveitis (a total of 407 eyes with uveitis) to 25 mg of weekly oral methotrexate or 1.5 g of twice-daily oral mycophenolate mofetil at nine referral eye care centers in India, the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico; the investigators were masked to the treatment assignment.
Patients with treatment success continued taking their randomized medication for another 6 months. If treatment failed, patients switched to the other antimetabolite with another 6-month follow-up. Overall, 84%-93% in each group had bilateral uveitis. Forty-six patients (21%) had intermediate uveitis only or anterior uveitis and intermediate uveitis, and 170 patients (79%) had posterior uveitis or panuveitis. The median age of the patients was 36 years in the methotrexate group and 41 years in the mycophenolate group; other demographic characteristics were similar between the groups.
Overall, 64 patients given methotrexate (67%) and 56 of those given mycophenolate (57%) achieved treatment success at 6 months. Treatment success included inflammation control defined as “less than or equal to 0.5+ anterior chamber cells by Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria, less than or equal to 0.5+ vitreous haze clinical grading using the National Eye Institute scale, and no active retinal or choroidal lesions,” as well as needing no more than 7.5 mg of prednisone daily and two drops or less of prednisolone acetate 1% per day, and reporting no intolerability or safety concerns requiring study discontinuation.
Adverse events were similar between the groups. The most common nonserious adverse events were fatigue and headaches, and the most common nonserious laboratory adverse event was elevated liver enzymes. Fourteen serious adverse events occurred during the study period; three in the methotrexate group and two in the mycophenolate group were deemed drug related and all were elevated liver function tests.
The study findings had several limitations, including lack of masking of the patients to the medication and an inability to compare between types of uveitis, the researchers noted. Avenues for further research include whether one of the drugs is more effective based on the uveitis subtype, they added.
The study was supported in part by the National Eye Institute and study drugs were provided by the University of California San Francisco Pharmacy. Dr. Rathinam disclosed grants from Aravind Eye Hospital, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Novartis, Novotech, and Bayer.
SOURCE: Rathinam SR et al. JAMA. 2019;322(10):936-45. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.12618.
in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial.
“The findings of this trial have implications for clinical practice because they provide scientific justification that mycophenolate mofetil is not more effective than methotrexate as a corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy for uveitis,” wrote S.R. Rathinam, MD, PhD, of Aravind Eye Hospital and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India, and colleagues.
Although corticosteroid therapy is the first-line treatment for uveitis, adverse effects limit long-term use. Mycophenolate mofetil and methotrexate are options for corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy for uveitis, but their effectiveness has not been compared until the current study, they said.
In the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) trial published Sept. 10 in JAMA, the researchers randomized 216 adults with uveitis (a total of 407 eyes with uveitis) to 25 mg of weekly oral methotrexate or 1.5 g of twice-daily oral mycophenolate mofetil at nine referral eye care centers in India, the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico; the investigators were masked to the treatment assignment.
Patients with treatment success continued taking their randomized medication for another 6 months. If treatment failed, patients switched to the other antimetabolite with another 6-month follow-up. Overall, 84%-93% in each group had bilateral uveitis. Forty-six patients (21%) had intermediate uveitis only or anterior uveitis and intermediate uveitis, and 170 patients (79%) had posterior uveitis or panuveitis. The median age of the patients was 36 years in the methotrexate group and 41 years in the mycophenolate group; other demographic characteristics were similar between the groups.
Overall, 64 patients given methotrexate (67%) and 56 of those given mycophenolate (57%) achieved treatment success at 6 months. Treatment success included inflammation control defined as “less than or equal to 0.5+ anterior chamber cells by Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria, less than or equal to 0.5+ vitreous haze clinical grading using the National Eye Institute scale, and no active retinal or choroidal lesions,” as well as needing no more than 7.5 mg of prednisone daily and two drops or less of prednisolone acetate 1% per day, and reporting no intolerability or safety concerns requiring study discontinuation.
Adverse events were similar between the groups. The most common nonserious adverse events were fatigue and headaches, and the most common nonserious laboratory adverse event was elevated liver enzymes. Fourteen serious adverse events occurred during the study period; three in the methotrexate group and two in the mycophenolate group were deemed drug related and all were elevated liver function tests.
The study findings had several limitations, including lack of masking of the patients to the medication and an inability to compare between types of uveitis, the researchers noted. Avenues for further research include whether one of the drugs is more effective based on the uveitis subtype, they added.
The study was supported in part by the National Eye Institute and study drugs were provided by the University of California San Francisco Pharmacy. Dr. Rathinam disclosed grants from Aravind Eye Hospital, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Novartis, Novotech, and Bayer.
SOURCE: Rathinam SR et al. JAMA. 2019;322(10):936-45. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.12618.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: Mycophenolate mofetil and methotrexate were similar as corticosteroid-sparing treatment in patients with uveitis.
Major finding: Among uveitis patients, 67% of those given methotrexate and 57% of those given mycophenolate achieved corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation.
Study details: The data come from a randomized trial of 216 adults with noninfectious uveitis at nine referral eye care centers in India, the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico.
Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the National Eye Institute and study drugs were provided by the University of California San Francisco Pharmacy. Dr. Rathinam disclosed grants from Aravind Eye Hospital, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Novartis, Novotech, and Bayer.
Source: Rathinam SR et al. JAMA. 2019;322(10):936-45. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.12618.