User login
Researchers making strides to better understand RA-associated interstitial lung disease
SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.
Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction
In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”
A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.
For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.
The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.
As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.
“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”
Biomarker Score Investigated
In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.
The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.
Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes
In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”
He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”
While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”
He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”
Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.
SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.
Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction
In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”
A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.
For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.
The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.
As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.
“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”
Biomarker Score Investigated
In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.
The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.
Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes
In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”
He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”
While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”
He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”
Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.
SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.
Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction
In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”
A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.
For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.
The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.
As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.
“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”
Biomarker Score Investigated
In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.
The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.
Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes
In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”
He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”
While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”
He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”
Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.
FROM ACR 2023
New KDIGO guideline encourages use of HCV-positive kidneys for HCV-negative recipients
The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group has updated its guideline concerning the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Of note, KDIGO now supports transplant of HCV-positive kidneys to HCV-negative recipients.
The guidance document, authored by Ahmed Arslan Yousuf Awan, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was written in light of new evidence that has emerged since the 2018 guideline was published.
“The focused update was triggered by new data on antiviral treatment in patients with advanced stages of CKD (G4, G5, or G5D), transplant of HCV-infected kidneys into uninfected recipients, and evolution of the viewpoint on the role of kidney biopsy in managing kidney disease caused by HCV,” the guideline panelists wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “This update is intended to assist clinicians in the care of patients with HCV infection and CKD, including patients receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) and patients with a kidney transplant (CKD G1T-G5T).”
Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor and clinical chief of nephrology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said the update is both “timely and relevant,” and “will really have an impact on the organ shortage that we have for kidney transplant”
The updates are outlined below.
Expanded Access to HCV-Positive Kidneys
While the 2018 guideline recommended that HCV-positive kidneys be directed to HCV-positive recipients, the new guideline suggests that these kidneys are appropriate for all patients regardless of HCV status.
In support, the panelists cited a follow-up of THINKER-1 trial, which showed that eGFR and quality of life were not negatively affected when HCV-negative patients received an HCV-positive kidney, compared with an HCV-negative kidney. Data from 525 unmatched recipients in 16 other studies support this conclusion, the panelists noted.
Jose Debes, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that this is the most important update to the KDIGO guidelines.
“That [change] would be the main impact of these recommendations,” Dr. Debes said in an interview. “Several centers were already doing this, since some data [were] out there, but I think the fact that they’re making this into a guideline is quite important.”
Dr. Rastogi agreed that this recommendation is the most impactful update.
“That’s a big move,” Dr. Rastogi said in an interview. He predicted that the change will “definitely increase the donor pool, which is very, very important.”
For this new recommendation to have the greatest positive effect, however, Dr. Rastogi suggested that health care providers and treatment centers need to prepare an effective implementation strategy. He emphasized the importance of early communication with patients concerning the safety of HCV-positive kidneys, which depends on early initiation of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy.
In the guideline, Dr. Awan and colleagues reported three documented cases of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis occurred in patients who did not begin DAA therapy until 30 days after transplant.
“[Patients] should start [DAA treatment] right away,” Dr. Rastogi said, “and sometimes even before the transplant.”
This will require institutional support, he noted, as centers need to ensure that patients are covered for DAA therapy and medication is readily available.
Sofosbuvir Given the Green Light
Compared with the 2018 guideline, which recommended against sofosbuvir in patients with CKD G4 and G5, including those on dialysis, because of concerns about metabolization via the kidneys, the new guideline suggests that sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens are appropriate in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, including those receiving dialysis.
This recommendation was based on a systematic review of 106 studies including both sofosbuvir-based and non-sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens that showed high safety and efficacy for all DAA regimen types across a broad variety of patient types.
“DAAs are highly effective and well tolerated treatments for hepatitis C in patients across all stages of CKD, including those undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant recipients, with no need for dose adjustment,” Dr. Awan and colleagues wrote.
Loosened Biopsy Requirements
Unlike the 2018 guideline, which advised kidney biopsy in HCV-positive patients with clinical evidence of glomerular disease prior to initiating DAA treatment, the new guideline suggests that HCV-infected patients with a typical presentation of immune-complex proliferative glomerulonephritis do not require confirmatory kidney biopsy.
“Because almost all patients with chronic hepatitis C (with or without glomerulonephritis) should be treated with DAAs, a kidney biopsy is unlikely to change management in most patients with hepatitis C and clinical glomerulonephritis,” the panelists wrote.
If kidney disease does not stabilize or improve with achievement of sustained virologic response, or if there is evidence of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, then a kidney biopsy should be considered before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, according to the guideline, which includes a flow chart to guide clinicians through this decision-making process.
Individualizing Immunosuppressive Therapy
Consistent with the old guideline, the new guideline recommends DAA treatment with concurrent immunosuppressive therapy for patients with cryoglobulinemic flare or rapidly progressive kidney failure. But in contrast, the new guideline calls for an individualized approach to immunosuppression in patients with nephrotic syndrome.
Dr. Awan and colleagues suggested that “nephrotic-range proteinuria (greater than 3.5 g/d) alone does not warrant use of immunosuppressive treatment because such patients can achieve remission of proteinuria after treatment with DAAs.” Still, if other associated complications — such as anasarca, thromboembolic disease, or severe hypoalbuminemia — are present, then immunosuppressive therapy may be warranted, with rituximab remaining the preferred first-line agent.
More Work Is Needed
Dr. Awan and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting areas of unmet need, and how filling these knowledge gaps could lead to additional guideline updates.
“Future studies of kidney donations from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients are needed to refine and clarify the timing of initiation and duration of DAA therapy and to assess long-term outcomes associated with this practice,” they wrote. “Also, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine which patients with HCV-associated kidney disease can be treated with DAA therapy alone versus in combination with immunosuppression and plasma exchange. KDIGO will assess the currency of its recommendations and the need to update them in the next 3 years.”
The guideline was funded by KDIGO. The investigators disclosed relationships with GSK, Gilead, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Debes had no conflicts of interest.
The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group has updated its guideline concerning the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Of note, KDIGO now supports transplant of HCV-positive kidneys to HCV-negative recipients.
The guidance document, authored by Ahmed Arslan Yousuf Awan, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was written in light of new evidence that has emerged since the 2018 guideline was published.
“The focused update was triggered by new data on antiviral treatment in patients with advanced stages of CKD (G4, G5, or G5D), transplant of HCV-infected kidneys into uninfected recipients, and evolution of the viewpoint on the role of kidney biopsy in managing kidney disease caused by HCV,” the guideline panelists wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “This update is intended to assist clinicians in the care of patients with HCV infection and CKD, including patients receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) and patients with a kidney transplant (CKD G1T-G5T).”
Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor and clinical chief of nephrology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said the update is both “timely and relevant,” and “will really have an impact on the organ shortage that we have for kidney transplant”
The updates are outlined below.
Expanded Access to HCV-Positive Kidneys
While the 2018 guideline recommended that HCV-positive kidneys be directed to HCV-positive recipients, the new guideline suggests that these kidneys are appropriate for all patients regardless of HCV status.
In support, the panelists cited a follow-up of THINKER-1 trial, which showed that eGFR and quality of life were not negatively affected when HCV-negative patients received an HCV-positive kidney, compared with an HCV-negative kidney. Data from 525 unmatched recipients in 16 other studies support this conclusion, the panelists noted.
Jose Debes, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that this is the most important update to the KDIGO guidelines.
“That [change] would be the main impact of these recommendations,” Dr. Debes said in an interview. “Several centers were already doing this, since some data [were] out there, but I think the fact that they’re making this into a guideline is quite important.”
Dr. Rastogi agreed that this recommendation is the most impactful update.
“That’s a big move,” Dr. Rastogi said in an interview. He predicted that the change will “definitely increase the donor pool, which is very, very important.”
For this new recommendation to have the greatest positive effect, however, Dr. Rastogi suggested that health care providers and treatment centers need to prepare an effective implementation strategy. He emphasized the importance of early communication with patients concerning the safety of HCV-positive kidneys, which depends on early initiation of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy.
In the guideline, Dr. Awan and colleagues reported three documented cases of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis occurred in patients who did not begin DAA therapy until 30 days after transplant.
“[Patients] should start [DAA treatment] right away,” Dr. Rastogi said, “and sometimes even before the transplant.”
This will require institutional support, he noted, as centers need to ensure that patients are covered for DAA therapy and medication is readily available.
Sofosbuvir Given the Green Light
Compared with the 2018 guideline, which recommended against sofosbuvir in patients with CKD G4 and G5, including those on dialysis, because of concerns about metabolization via the kidneys, the new guideline suggests that sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens are appropriate in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, including those receiving dialysis.
This recommendation was based on a systematic review of 106 studies including both sofosbuvir-based and non-sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens that showed high safety and efficacy for all DAA regimen types across a broad variety of patient types.
“DAAs are highly effective and well tolerated treatments for hepatitis C in patients across all stages of CKD, including those undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant recipients, with no need for dose adjustment,” Dr. Awan and colleagues wrote.
Loosened Biopsy Requirements
Unlike the 2018 guideline, which advised kidney biopsy in HCV-positive patients with clinical evidence of glomerular disease prior to initiating DAA treatment, the new guideline suggests that HCV-infected patients with a typical presentation of immune-complex proliferative glomerulonephritis do not require confirmatory kidney biopsy.
“Because almost all patients with chronic hepatitis C (with or without glomerulonephritis) should be treated with DAAs, a kidney biopsy is unlikely to change management in most patients with hepatitis C and clinical glomerulonephritis,” the panelists wrote.
If kidney disease does not stabilize or improve with achievement of sustained virologic response, or if there is evidence of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, then a kidney biopsy should be considered before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, according to the guideline, which includes a flow chart to guide clinicians through this decision-making process.
Individualizing Immunosuppressive Therapy
Consistent with the old guideline, the new guideline recommends DAA treatment with concurrent immunosuppressive therapy for patients with cryoglobulinemic flare or rapidly progressive kidney failure. But in contrast, the new guideline calls for an individualized approach to immunosuppression in patients with nephrotic syndrome.
Dr. Awan and colleagues suggested that “nephrotic-range proteinuria (greater than 3.5 g/d) alone does not warrant use of immunosuppressive treatment because such patients can achieve remission of proteinuria after treatment with DAAs.” Still, if other associated complications — such as anasarca, thromboembolic disease, or severe hypoalbuminemia — are present, then immunosuppressive therapy may be warranted, with rituximab remaining the preferred first-line agent.
More Work Is Needed
Dr. Awan and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting areas of unmet need, and how filling these knowledge gaps could lead to additional guideline updates.
“Future studies of kidney donations from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients are needed to refine and clarify the timing of initiation and duration of DAA therapy and to assess long-term outcomes associated with this practice,” they wrote. “Also, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine which patients with HCV-associated kidney disease can be treated with DAA therapy alone versus in combination with immunosuppression and plasma exchange. KDIGO will assess the currency of its recommendations and the need to update them in the next 3 years.”
The guideline was funded by KDIGO. The investigators disclosed relationships with GSK, Gilead, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Debes had no conflicts of interest.
The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group has updated its guideline concerning the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Of note, KDIGO now supports transplant of HCV-positive kidneys to HCV-negative recipients.
The guidance document, authored by Ahmed Arslan Yousuf Awan, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was written in light of new evidence that has emerged since the 2018 guideline was published.
“The focused update was triggered by new data on antiviral treatment in patients with advanced stages of CKD (G4, G5, or G5D), transplant of HCV-infected kidneys into uninfected recipients, and evolution of the viewpoint on the role of kidney biopsy in managing kidney disease caused by HCV,” the guideline panelists wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “This update is intended to assist clinicians in the care of patients with HCV infection and CKD, including patients receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) and patients with a kidney transplant (CKD G1T-G5T).”
Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor and clinical chief of nephrology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said the update is both “timely and relevant,” and “will really have an impact on the organ shortage that we have for kidney transplant”
The updates are outlined below.
Expanded Access to HCV-Positive Kidneys
While the 2018 guideline recommended that HCV-positive kidneys be directed to HCV-positive recipients, the new guideline suggests that these kidneys are appropriate for all patients regardless of HCV status.
In support, the panelists cited a follow-up of THINKER-1 trial, which showed that eGFR and quality of life were not negatively affected when HCV-negative patients received an HCV-positive kidney, compared with an HCV-negative kidney. Data from 525 unmatched recipients in 16 other studies support this conclusion, the panelists noted.
Jose Debes, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that this is the most important update to the KDIGO guidelines.
“That [change] would be the main impact of these recommendations,” Dr. Debes said in an interview. “Several centers were already doing this, since some data [were] out there, but I think the fact that they’re making this into a guideline is quite important.”
Dr. Rastogi agreed that this recommendation is the most impactful update.
“That’s a big move,” Dr. Rastogi said in an interview. He predicted that the change will “definitely increase the donor pool, which is very, very important.”
For this new recommendation to have the greatest positive effect, however, Dr. Rastogi suggested that health care providers and treatment centers need to prepare an effective implementation strategy. He emphasized the importance of early communication with patients concerning the safety of HCV-positive kidneys, which depends on early initiation of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy.
In the guideline, Dr. Awan and colleagues reported three documented cases of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis occurred in patients who did not begin DAA therapy until 30 days after transplant.
“[Patients] should start [DAA treatment] right away,” Dr. Rastogi said, “and sometimes even before the transplant.”
This will require institutional support, he noted, as centers need to ensure that patients are covered for DAA therapy and medication is readily available.
Sofosbuvir Given the Green Light
Compared with the 2018 guideline, which recommended against sofosbuvir in patients with CKD G4 and G5, including those on dialysis, because of concerns about metabolization via the kidneys, the new guideline suggests that sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens are appropriate in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, including those receiving dialysis.
This recommendation was based on a systematic review of 106 studies including both sofosbuvir-based and non-sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens that showed high safety and efficacy for all DAA regimen types across a broad variety of patient types.
“DAAs are highly effective and well tolerated treatments for hepatitis C in patients across all stages of CKD, including those undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant recipients, with no need for dose adjustment,” Dr. Awan and colleagues wrote.
Loosened Biopsy Requirements
Unlike the 2018 guideline, which advised kidney biopsy in HCV-positive patients with clinical evidence of glomerular disease prior to initiating DAA treatment, the new guideline suggests that HCV-infected patients with a typical presentation of immune-complex proliferative glomerulonephritis do not require confirmatory kidney biopsy.
“Because almost all patients with chronic hepatitis C (with or without glomerulonephritis) should be treated with DAAs, a kidney biopsy is unlikely to change management in most patients with hepatitis C and clinical glomerulonephritis,” the panelists wrote.
If kidney disease does not stabilize or improve with achievement of sustained virologic response, or if there is evidence of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, then a kidney biopsy should be considered before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, according to the guideline, which includes a flow chart to guide clinicians through this decision-making process.
Individualizing Immunosuppressive Therapy
Consistent with the old guideline, the new guideline recommends DAA treatment with concurrent immunosuppressive therapy for patients with cryoglobulinemic flare or rapidly progressive kidney failure. But in contrast, the new guideline calls for an individualized approach to immunosuppression in patients with nephrotic syndrome.
Dr. Awan and colleagues suggested that “nephrotic-range proteinuria (greater than 3.5 g/d) alone does not warrant use of immunosuppressive treatment because such patients can achieve remission of proteinuria after treatment with DAAs.” Still, if other associated complications — such as anasarca, thromboembolic disease, or severe hypoalbuminemia — are present, then immunosuppressive therapy may be warranted, with rituximab remaining the preferred first-line agent.
More Work Is Needed
Dr. Awan and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting areas of unmet need, and how filling these knowledge gaps could lead to additional guideline updates.
“Future studies of kidney donations from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients are needed to refine and clarify the timing of initiation and duration of DAA therapy and to assess long-term outcomes associated with this practice,” they wrote. “Also, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine which patients with HCV-associated kidney disease can be treated with DAA therapy alone versus in combination with immunosuppression and plasma exchange. KDIGO will assess the currency of its recommendations and the need to update them in the next 3 years.”
The guideline was funded by KDIGO. The investigators disclosed relationships with GSK, Gilead, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Debes had no conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Technology for primary care — terrific, terrifying, or both?
We have all been using technology in our primary care practices for a long time but newer formats have been emerging so fast that our minds, much less our staff’s minds, may be spinning.
Our old friend the telephone, a time-soaking nemesis for scheduling, checking coverage, questions calls, prescribing, quick consults, and follow-up is being replaced by EHR portals and SMS for messaging (e.g. DoctorConnect, SimplePractice), drop-in televisits and patient education links on our websites (e.g. Schmitt Pediatric Care, Remedy Connect), and chatbots for scheduling (e.g. CHEC-UP). While time is saved, what is lost may be hearing the subtext of anxiety or misperceptions in parents’ voices that would change our advice and the empathetic human connection in conversations with our patients. A hybrid approach may be better.
The paper appointment book has been replaced by scheduling systems sometimes lacking in flexibility for double booking, sibling visits, and variable length or extremely valuable multi-professional visits. Allowing patients to book their own visits may place complex problems in inappropriate slots, so only allowing online requests for visits is safer. On the other hand, many of us can now squeeze in “same day” televisits (e.g. Blueberry Pediatrics), sometimes from outside our practice (e.g., zocdoc), to increase payments and even entice new patients to enroll.
Amazing advances in technology are being made in specialty care such as genetic modifications (CRISPR), immunotherapies (mRNA vaccines and AI drug design), robot-assisted surgery, and 3-D printing of body parts and prosthetics. Technology as treatment such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and vagal stimulation are finding value in psychiatry.
But beside being aware of and able to order such specialty technologies, innovations are now extending our senses in primary care such as amplified or visual stethoscopes, bedside ultrasound (e.g. Butterfly), remote visualization (oto-, endo-)scopes, photographic vision screens (e.g. iScreen) for skin lesion (VisualDx) and genetic syndrome facial recognition. We need to be sure that technologies are tested and calibrated for children and different racial groups and genders to provide safe and equitable care. Early adoption may not always be the best approach. Costs of technology, as usual, may limit access to these advanced care aids especially, as usual, in practices serving low income and rural communities.
Patients, especially younger parents and youth, now expect to participate and can directly benefit from technology as part of their health care. Validated parent or self-report screens (e.g. EHRs, Phreesia) can detect important issues early for more effective intervention. Such questionnaires typically provide a pass/fail result or score, but other delivery systems (e.g. CHADIS) include interpretation, assist patients/parents in setting visit priorities and health goals, and even chain results of one questionnaire to secondary screens to hone in on problems, sometimes obviating a time-consuming second visit. Patient-completed comprehensive questionnaires (e.g. Well Visit Planner, CHADIS) allow us time to use our skills to focus on concerns, education, and management rather than asking myriad routine questions. Some (e.g. CHADIS) even create visit documentation reducing our “pajama time” write ups (and burnout); automate repeated online measures to track progress; and use questionnaire results to trigger related patient-specific education and resources rather than the often-ignored generic EHR handouts.
Digital therapeutics such as apps for anxiety (e.g. Calm), depression (e.g. SparkRx, Cass), weight control (e.g. Noom, Lose it), fitness, or sleep tracking (e.g. Whoop) help educate and, in some cases, provide real-time feedback to personalize discovery of contributing factors in order to maintain motivation for positive health behavior change. Some video games improve ADHD symptoms (e.g. EndeavorRX). Virtual reality scenarios have been shown to desensitize those with PTSD and social anxiety or teach social skills to children with autism.
Systems that trigger resource listings (including apps) from screen results can help, but now with over 10,000 apps for mental health, knowing what to recommend for what conditions is a challenge for which ratings (e.g. MINDapps.org) can help. With few product reps visiting to tell us what’s new, we need to read critically about innovations, search the web, subscribe to the AAP SOAPM LISTSERV, visit exhibitors at professional meetings, and talk with peers.
All the digital data collected from health care technology, if assembled with privacy constraints and analyzed with advanced statistical methods, have the possibility, with or without inclusion of genomic data, to allow for more accurate diagnostic and treatment decision support. While AI can search widely for patterns, it needs to be “trained” on appropriate data to make correct conclusions. We are all aware that the history determines 85% of both diagnosis and treatment decisions, particularly in primary care where x-rays or lab tests are not often needed.
But history in EHR notes is often idiosyncratic, entered hours after the visit by the clinician, and does not include the information needed to define diagnostic or guideline criteria, even if the clinician knows and considered those criteria. EHR templates are presented blank and are onerous and time consuming for clinicians. In addition, individual patient barriers to care, preferences, and environmental or subjective concerns are infrequently documented even though they may make the biggest difference to adherence and/or outcomes.
Notes made from voice to text digital AI translation of the encounter (e.g. Nuance DAX) are even less likely to include diagnostic criteria as it would be inappropriate to speak these. To use EHR history data to train AI and to test efficacy of care using variations of guidelines, guideline-related data is needed from online patient entries in questionnaires that are transformed to fill in templates along with some structured choices for clinician entries forming visit notes (e.g. CHADIS). New apps to facilitate clinician documentation of guidelines (e.g. AvoMD) could streamline visits as well as help document guideline criteria. The resulting combination of guideline-relevant patient histories and objective data to test and iteratively refine guidelines will allow a process known as a “Learning Health System.”
Technology to collect this kind of data can allow for the aspirational American Academy of Pediatrics CHILD Registry to approach this goal. Population-level data can provide surveillance for illness, toxins, effects of climate change, social drivers of health, and even effects of technologies themselves such as social media and remote learning so that we can attempt to make the best choices for the future.
Clinicians, staff, and patients will need to develop trust in technology as it infiltrates all aspects of health care. Professionals need both evidence and experience to trust a technology, which takes time and effort. Disinformation in the media may reduce trust or evoke unwarranted trust, as we have all seen regarding vaccines. Clear and coherent public health messaging can help but is no longer a panacea for developing trust in health care. Our nonjudgmental listening and informed opinions are needed more than ever.
The biggest issues for new technology are likely to be the need for workflow adjustments, changing our habit patterns, training, and cost/benefit analyses. With today’s high staff churn, confusion and even chaos can ensue when adopting new technology.
Staff need to be part of the selection process, if at all possible, and discuss how roles and flow will need to change. Having one staff member be a champion and expert for new tech can move adoption to a shared process rather than imposing “one more thing.” It is crucial to discuss the benefits for patients and staff even if the change is required. Sometimes cost savings can include a bonus for staff or free group lunches. Providing a certificate of achievement or title promotion for mastering new tech may be appropriate. Giving some time off from other tasks to learn new workflows can reduce resistance rather than just adding it on to a regular workload. Office “huddles” going forward can include examples of benefits staff have observed or heard about from the adoption. There are quality improvement processes that engage the team — some that earn MOC-4 or CEU credits — that apply to making workflow changes and measuring them iteratively.
If technology takes over important aspects of the work of medical professionals, even if it is faster and/or more accurate, it may degrade clinical observational, interactional, and decision-making skills through lack of use. It may also remove the sense of self-efficacy that motivates professionals to endure onerous training and desire to enter the field. Using technology may reduce empathetic interactions that are basic to humanistic motivation, work satisfaction, and even community respect. Moral injury is already rampant in medicine from restrictions on freedom to do what we see as important for our patients. Technology has great potential and already is enhancing our ability to provide the best care for patients but the risks need to be watched for and ameliorated.
When technology automates comprehensive visit documentation that highlights priority and risk areas from patient input and individualizes decision support, it can facilitate the personalized care that we and our patients want to experience. We must not be so awed, intrigued, or wary of new technology to miss its benefits nor give up our good clinical judgment about the technology or about our patients.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
We have all been using technology in our primary care practices for a long time but newer formats have been emerging so fast that our minds, much less our staff’s minds, may be spinning.
Our old friend the telephone, a time-soaking nemesis for scheduling, checking coverage, questions calls, prescribing, quick consults, and follow-up is being replaced by EHR portals and SMS for messaging (e.g. DoctorConnect, SimplePractice), drop-in televisits and patient education links on our websites (e.g. Schmitt Pediatric Care, Remedy Connect), and chatbots for scheduling (e.g. CHEC-UP). While time is saved, what is lost may be hearing the subtext of anxiety or misperceptions in parents’ voices that would change our advice and the empathetic human connection in conversations with our patients. A hybrid approach may be better.
The paper appointment book has been replaced by scheduling systems sometimes lacking in flexibility for double booking, sibling visits, and variable length or extremely valuable multi-professional visits. Allowing patients to book their own visits may place complex problems in inappropriate slots, so only allowing online requests for visits is safer. On the other hand, many of us can now squeeze in “same day” televisits (e.g. Blueberry Pediatrics), sometimes from outside our practice (e.g., zocdoc), to increase payments and even entice new patients to enroll.
Amazing advances in technology are being made in specialty care such as genetic modifications (CRISPR), immunotherapies (mRNA vaccines and AI drug design), robot-assisted surgery, and 3-D printing of body parts and prosthetics. Technology as treatment such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and vagal stimulation are finding value in psychiatry.
But beside being aware of and able to order such specialty technologies, innovations are now extending our senses in primary care such as amplified or visual stethoscopes, bedside ultrasound (e.g. Butterfly), remote visualization (oto-, endo-)scopes, photographic vision screens (e.g. iScreen) for skin lesion (VisualDx) and genetic syndrome facial recognition. We need to be sure that technologies are tested and calibrated for children and different racial groups and genders to provide safe and equitable care. Early adoption may not always be the best approach. Costs of technology, as usual, may limit access to these advanced care aids especially, as usual, in practices serving low income and rural communities.
Patients, especially younger parents and youth, now expect to participate and can directly benefit from technology as part of their health care. Validated parent or self-report screens (e.g. EHRs, Phreesia) can detect important issues early for more effective intervention. Such questionnaires typically provide a pass/fail result or score, but other delivery systems (e.g. CHADIS) include interpretation, assist patients/parents in setting visit priorities and health goals, and even chain results of one questionnaire to secondary screens to hone in on problems, sometimes obviating a time-consuming second visit. Patient-completed comprehensive questionnaires (e.g. Well Visit Planner, CHADIS) allow us time to use our skills to focus on concerns, education, and management rather than asking myriad routine questions. Some (e.g. CHADIS) even create visit documentation reducing our “pajama time” write ups (and burnout); automate repeated online measures to track progress; and use questionnaire results to trigger related patient-specific education and resources rather than the often-ignored generic EHR handouts.
Digital therapeutics such as apps for anxiety (e.g. Calm), depression (e.g. SparkRx, Cass), weight control (e.g. Noom, Lose it), fitness, or sleep tracking (e.g. Whoop) help educate and, in some cases, provide real-time feedback to personalize discovery of contributing factors in order to maintain motivation for positive health behavior change. Some video games improve ADHD symptoms (e.g. EndeavorRX). Virtual reality scenarios have been shown to desensitize those with PTSD and social anxiety or teach social skills to children with autism.
Systems that trigger resource listings (including apps) from screen results can help, but now with over 10,000 apps for mental health, knowing what to recommend for what conditions is a challenge for which ratings (e.g. MINDapps.org) can help. With few product reps visiting to tell us what’s new, we need to read critically about innovations, search the web, subscribe to the AAP SOAPM LISTSERV, visit exhibitors at professional meetings, and talk with peers.
All the digital data collected from health care technology, if assembled with privacy constraints and analyzed with advanced statistical methods, have the possibility, with or without inclusion of genomic data, to allow for more accurate diagnostic and treatment decision support. While AI can search widely for patterns, it needs to be “trained” on appropriate data to make correct conclusions. We are all aware that the history determines 85% of both diagnosis and treatment decisions, particularly in primary care where x-rays or lab tests are not often needed.
But history in EHR notes is often idiosyncratic, entered hours after the visit by the clinician, and does not include the information needed to define diagnostic or guideline criteria, even if the clinician knows and considered those criteria. EHR templates are presented blank and are onerous and time consuming for clinicians. In addition, individual patient barriers to care, preferences, and environmental or subjective concerns are infrequently documented even though they may make the biggest difference to adherence and/or outcomes.
Notes made from voice to text digital AI translation of the encounter (e.g. Nuance DAX) are even less likely to include diagnostic criteria as it would be inappropriate to speak these. To use EHR history data to train AI and to test efficacy of care using variations of guidelines, guideline-related data is needed from online patient entries in questionnaires that are transformed to fill in templates along with some structured choices for clinician entries forming visit notes (e.g. CHADIS). New apps to facilitate clinician documentation of guidelines (e.g. AvoMD) could streamline visits as well as help document guideline criteria. The resulting combination of guideline-relevant patient histories and objective data to test and iteratively refine guidelines will allow a process known as a “Learning Health System.”
Technology to collect this kind of data can allow for the aspirational American Academy of Pediatrics CHILD Registry to approach this goal. Population-level data can provide surveillance for illness, toxins, effects of climate change, social drivers of health, and even effects of technologies themselves such as social media and remote learning so that we can attempt to make the best choices for the future.
Clinicians, staff, and patients will need to develop trust in technology as it infiltrates all aspects of health care. Professionals need both evidence and experience to trust a technology, which takes time and effort. Disinformation in the media may reduce trust or evoke unwarranted trust, as we have all seen regarding vaccines. Clear and coherent public health messaging can help but is no longer a panacea for developing trust in health care. Our nonjudgmental listening and informed opinions are needed more than ever.
The biggest issues for new technology are likely to be the need for workflow adjustments, changing our habit patterns, training, and cost/benefit analyses. With today’s high staff churn, confusion and even chaos can ensue when adopting new technology.
Staff need to be part of the selection process, if at all possible, and discuss how roles and flow will need to change. Having one staff member be a champion and expert for new tech can move adoption to a shared process rather than imposing “one more thing.” It is crucial to discuss the benefits for patients and staff even if the change is required. Sometimes cost savings can include a bonus for staff or free group lunches. Providing a certificate of achievement or title promotion for mastering new tech may be appropriate. Giving some time off from other tasks to learn new workflows can reduce resistance rather than just adding it on to a regular workload. Office “huddles” going forward can include examples of benefits staff have observed or heard about from the adoption. There are quality improvement processes that engage the team — some that earn MOC-4 or CEU credits — that apply to making workflow changes and measuring them iteratively.
If technology takes over important aspects of the work of medical professionals, even if it is faster and/or more accurate, it may degrade clinical observational, interactional, and decision-making skills through lack of use. It may also remove the sense of self-efficacy that motivates professionals to endure onerous training and desire to enter the field. Using technology may reduce empathetic interactions that are basic to humanistic motivation, work satisfaction, and even community respect. Moral injury is already rampant in medicine from restrictions on freedom to do what we see as important for our patients. Technology has great potential and already is enhancing our ability to provide the best care for patients but the risks need to be watched for and ameliorated.
When technology automates comprehensive visit documentation that highlights priority and risk areas from patient input and individualizes decision support, it can facilitate the personalized care that we and our patients want to experience. We must not be so awed, intrigued, or wary of new technology to miss its benefits nor give up our good clinical judgment about the technology or about our patients.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
We have all been using technology in our primary care practices for a long time but newer formats have been emerging so fast that our minds, much less our staff’s minds, may be spinning.
Our old friend the telephone, a time-soaking nemesis for scheduling, checking coverage, questions calls, prescribing, quick consults, and follow-up is being replaced by EHR portals and SMS for messaging (e.g. DoctorConnect, SimplePractice), drop-in televisits and patient education links on our websites (e.g. Schmitt Pediatric Care, Remedy Connect), and chatbots for scheduling (e.g. CHEC-UP). While time is saved, what is lost may be hearing the subtext of anxiety or misperceptions in parents’ voices that would change our advice and the empathetic human connection in conversations with our patients. A hybrid approach may be better.
The paper appointment book has been replaced by scheduling systems sometimes lacking in flexibility for double booking, sibling visits, and variable length or extremely valuable multi-professional visits. Allowing patients to book their own visits may place complex problems in inappropriate slots, so only allowing online requests for visits is safer. On the other hand, many of us can now squeeze in “same day” televisits (e.g. Blueberry Pediatrics), sometimes from outside our practice (e.g., zocdoc), to increase payments and even entice new patients to enroll.
Amazing advances in technology are being made in specialty care such as genetic modifications (CRISPR), immunotherapies (mRNA vaccines and AI drug design), robot-assisted surgery, and 3-D printing of body parts and prosthetics. Technology as treatment such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and vagal stimulation are finding value in psychiatry.
But beside being aware of and able to order such specialty technologies, innovations are now extending our senses in primary care such as amplified or visual stethoscopes, bedside ultrasound (e.g. Butterfly), remote visualization (oto-, endo-)scopes, photographic vision screens (e.g. iScreen) for skin lesion (VisualDx) and genetic syndrome facial recognition. We need to be sure that technologies are tested and calibrated for children and different racial groups and genders to provide safe and equitable care. Early adoption may not always be the best approach. Costs of technology, as usual, may limit access to these advanced care aids especially, as usual, in practices serving low income and rural communities.
Patients, especially younger parents and youth, now expect to participate and can directly benefit from technology as part of their health care. Validated parent or self-report screens (e.g. EHRs, Phreesia) can detect important issues early for more effective intervention. Such questionnaires typically provide a pass/fail result or score, but other delivery systems (e.g. CHADIS) include interpretation, assist patients/parents in setting visit priorities and health goals, and even chain results of one questionnaire to secondary screens to hone in on problems, sometimes obviating a time-consuming second visit. Patient-completed comprehensive questionnaires (e.g. Well Visit Planner, CHADIS) allow us time to use our skills to focus on concerns, education, and management rather than asking myriad routine questions. Some (e.g. CHADIS) even create visit documentation reducing our “pajama time” write ups (and burnout); automate repeated online measures to track progress; and use questionnaire results to trigger related patient-specific education and resources rather than the often-ignored generic EHR handouts.
Digital therapeutics such as apps for anxiety (e.g. Calm), depression (e.g. SparkRx, Cass), weight control (e.g. Noom, Lose it), fitness, or sleep tracking (e.g. Whoop) help educate and, in some cases, provide real-time feedback to personalize discovery of contributing factors in order to maintain motivation for positive health behavior change. Some video games improve ADHD symptoms (e.g. EndeavorRX). Virtual reality scenarios have been shown to desensitize those with PTSD and social anxiety or teach social skills to children with autism.
Systems that trigger resource listings (including apps) from screen results can help, but now with over 10,000 apps for mental health, knowing what to recommend for what conditions is a challenge for which ratings (e.g. MINDapps.org) can help. With few product reps visiting to tell us what’s new, we need to read critically about innovations, search the web, subscribe to the AAP SOAPM LISTSERV, visit exhibitors at professional meetings, and talk with peers.
All the digital data collected from health care technology, if assembled with privacy constraints and analyzed with advanced statistical methods, have the possibility, with or without inclusion of genomic data, to allow for more accurate diagnostic and treatment decision support. While AI can search widely for patterns, it needs to be “trained” on appropriate data to make correct conclusions. We are all aware that the history determines 85% of both diagnosis and treatment decisions, particularly in primary care where x-rays or lab tests are not often needed.
But history in EHR notes is often idiosyncratic, entered hours after the visit by the clinician, and does not include the information needed to define diagnostic or guideline criteria, even if the clinician knows and considered those criteria. EHR templates are presented blank and are onerous and time consuming for clinicians. In addition, individual patient barriers to care, preferences, and environmental or subjective concerns are infrequently documented even though they may make the biggest difference to adherence and/or outcomes.
Notes made from voice to text digital AI translation of the encounter (e.g. Nuance DAX) are even less likely to include diagnostic criteria as it would be inappropriate to speak these. To use EHR history data to train AI and to test efficacy of care using variations of guidelines, guideline-related data is needed from online patient entries in questionnaires that are transformed to fill in templates along with some structured choices for clinician entries forming visit notes (e.g. CHADIS). New apps to facilitate clinician documentation of guidelines (e.g. AvoMD) could streamline visits as well as help document guideline criteria. The resulting combination of guideline-relevant patient histories and objective data to test and iteratively refine guidelines will allow a process known as a “Learning Health System.”
Technology to collect this kind of data can allow for the aspirational American Academy of Pediatrics CHILD Registry to approach this goal. Population-level data can provide surveillance for illness, toxins, effects of climate change, social drivers of health, and even effects of technologies themselves such as social media and remote learning so that we can attempt to make the best choices for the future.
Clinicians, staff, and patients will need to develop trust in technology as it infiltrates all aspects of health care. Professionals need both evidence and experience to trust a technology, which takes time and effort. Disinformation in the media may reduce trust or evoke unwarranted trust, as we have all seen regarding vaccines. Clear and coherent public health messaging can help but is no longer a panacea for developing trust in health care. Our nonjudgmental listening and informed opinions are needed more than ever.
The biggest issues for new technology are likely to be the need for workflow adjustments, changing our habit patterns, training, and cost/benefit analyses. With today’s high staff churn, confusion and even chaos can ensue when adopting new technology.
Staff need to be part of the selection process, if at all possible, and discuss how roles and flow will need to change. Having one staff member be a champion and expert for new tech can move adoption to a shared process rather than imposing “one more thing.” It is crucial to discuss the benefits for patients and staff even if the change is required. Sometimes cost savings can include a bonus for staff or free group lunches. Providing a certificate of achievement or title promotion for mastering new tech may be appropriate. Giving some time off from other tasks to learn new workflows can reduce resistance rather than just adding it on to a regular workload. Office “huddles” going forward can include examples of benefits staff have observed or heard about from the adoption. There are quality improvement processes that engage the team — some that earn MOC-4 or CEU credits — that apply to making workflow changes and measuring them iteratively.
If technology takes over important aspects of the work of medical professionals, even if it is faster and/or more accurate, it may degrade clinical observational, interactional, and decision-making skills through lack of use. It may also remove the sense of self-efficacy that motivates professionals to endure onerous training and desire to enter the field. Using technology may reduce empathetic interactions that are basic to humanistic motivation, work satisfaction, and even community respect. Moral injury is already rampant in medicine from restrictions on freedom to do what we see as important for our patients. Technology has great potential and already is enhancing our ability to provide the best care for patients but the risks need to be watched for and ameliorated.
When technology automates comprehensive visit documentation that highlights priority and risk areas from patient input and individualizes decision support, it can facilitate the personalized care that we and our patients want to experience. We must not be so awed, intrigued, or wary of new technology to miss its benefits nor give up our good clinical judgment about the technology or about our patients.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
Large Indurated Plaque on the Chest With Ulceration and Necrosis
The Diagnosis: Carcinoma en Cuirasse
Histopathology demonstrated a cellular infiltrate filling the dermis with sparing of the papillary and superficial reticular dermis (Figure 1A). The cells were arranged in strands and cords that infiltrated between sclerotic collagen bundles. Cytomorphologically, the cells ranged from epithelioid with large vesicular nuclei and prominent nucleoli to cuboidal with hyperchromatic nuclei with irregular contours and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio (Figure 1B). Occasional mitotic figures were identified, and cells demonstrated diffuse nuclear positivity for GATA-3 (Figure 1C); 55% of the cells demonstrated estrogen receptor positivity, and immunohistochemistry of progesterone receptors was negative. These findings confirmed our patient’s diagnosis of breast carcinoma en cuirasse (CeC) as the primary manifestation of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma. Our patient was treated with intravenous chemotherapy and tamoxifen.
Histopathologic findings of morphea include thickened hyalinized collagen bundles and loss of adventitial fat.1 A diagnosis of chronic radiation dermatitis was inconsistent with our patient’s medical history and biopsy results, as pathology should reveal hyalinized collagen or stellate radiation fibroblasts.2,3 Nests of squamous epithelial cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and large vesicular nuclei were not seen, excluding squamous cell carcinoma as a possible diagnosis.4 Although sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma is characterized by infiltrating cords in sclerotic dermis, the cells were not arranged in ductlike structures 1– to 2–cell layers thick, excluding this diagnosis.5
Carcinoma en cuirasse—named for skin involvement that appears similar to the metal breastplate of a cuirassier—is a rare form of cutaneous metastasis that typically presents with extensive infiltrative plaques resulting in fibrosis of the skin and subcutaneous tissue.6,7 Carcinoma en cuirasse most commonly metastasizes from the breast but also may represent metastases from the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or genitourinary systems.8 In the setting of a primary breast malignancy, metastatic plaques of CeC tend to represent tumor recurrence following a mastectomy procedure; however, in rare cases CeC can present as the primary manifestation of breast cancer or as a result of untreated malignancy.6,9 In our patient, CeC was the primary manifestation of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma with additional paraneoplastic ichthyosis (Figure 2).
Carcinoma en cuirasse comprises 3% to 6% of cutaneous metastases originating from the breast.10,11 Breast cancer is the most common primary neoplasm displaying extracutaneous metastasis, comprising 70% of all cutaneous metastases in females.11 Cutaneous metastasis often indicates late stage of disease, portending a poor prognosis. In our patient, the cutaneous nodules were present for approximately 3 years prior to the diagnosis of stage IV invasive ductal cell carcinoma with metastasis to the skin and lungs. Prior to admission, she had not been diagnosed with breast cancer, thus no treatments had been administered. It is uncommon for CeC to present as the initial finding and without prior treatment of the underlying malignancy. The median length of survival after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis from breast cancer is 13.8 months, with a 10-year survival rate of 3.1%.12
In addition to cutaneous metastasis, breast cancer also may present with paraneoplastic dermatoses such as ichthyosis.13 Ichthyosis is characterized by extreme dryness, flaking, thickening, and mild pruritus.14 It most commonly is an inherited condition, but it may be acquired due to malignancy. Acquired ichthyosis may manifest in systemic diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis, and hypothyroidism.15 Although acquired ichthyosis is rare, it has been reported in cases of internal malignancy, most commonly lymphoproliferative malignancies and less frequently carcinoma of the breasts, cervix, and lungs. Patients who acquire ichthyosis in association with malignancy usually present with late-stage disease.15 Our patient acquired ichthyosis 3 months prior to admission and had never experienced it previously. Although the exact mechanism for acquiring ichthyosis remains unknown, it is uncertain if ichthyosis associated with malignancy is paraneoplastic or a result of chemotherapy.14,16 In this case, the patient had not yet started chemotherapy at the time of the ichthyosis diagnosis, suggesting a paraneoplastic etiology.
Carcinoma en cuirasse and paraneoplastic ichthyosis individually are extremely rare manifestations of breast cancer. Thus, it is even rarer for these conditions to present concurrently. Treatment options for CeC include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal antagonists, and snake venom.11 Systemic chemotherapy targeting the histopathologic type of the primary tumor is the treatment of choice. Other treatment methods usually are chosen for late stages of disease progression.10 Paraneoplastic ichthyosis has been reported to show improvement with treatment of the underlying primary malignancy by surgical removal or chemotherapy.14,17 Tamoxifen less commonly is used for systemic treatment of CeC, but one case in the literature reported favorable outcomes.18
We describe 2 rare cutaneous manifestations of breast cancer occurring concomitantly: CeC and paraneoplastic ichthyosis. The combination of clinical and pathologic findings presented in this case solidified the diagnosis of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma. We aim to improve recognition of paraneoplastic skin findings to accelerate the process of effective and efficient treatment.
- Walker D, Susa JS, Currimbhoy S, et al. Histopathological changes in morphea and their clinical correlates: results from the Morphea in Adults and Children Cohort V. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:1124-1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.020
- Borrelli MR, Shen AH, Lee GK, et al. Radiation-induced skin fibrosis: pathogenesis, current treatment options, and emerging therapeutics. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83(4 suppl 1):S59-S64. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002098
- Boncher J, Bergfeld WF. Fluoroscopy-induced chronic radiation dermatitis: a report of two additional cases and a brief review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2012;39:63-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1600-0560.2011.01754.x
- Cassarino DS, Derienzo DP, Barr RJ. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive clinicopathologic classification. part one. J Cutan Pathol. 2006;33:191-206. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.0303-6987.2006.00516_1.x
- Harvey DT, Hu J, Long JA, et al. Sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma of the lower extremity treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. JAAD Case Rep. 2016;2:284-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdcr.2016.05.017
- Sharma V, Kumar A. Carcinoma en cuirasse. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2562. doi:10.1056/NEJMicm2111669
- Oliveira GM, Zachetti DB, Barros HR, et al. Breast carcinoma en cuirasse—case report. An Bras Dermatol. 2013;88:608-610. doi:10.1590/abd1806-4841.20131926
- Alcaraz I, Cerroni L, Rütten A, et al. Cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical review. Am J Dermatopathol. 2012;34:347-393. doi:10.1097 /DAD.0b013e31823069cf
- Glazebrook AJ, Tomaszewski W. Ichthyosiform atrophy of the skin in Hodgkin’s disease: report of a case, with reference to vitamin A metabolism. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1944;50:85-89. doi:10.1001 /archderm.1944.01510140008002
- Mordenti C, Concetta F, Cerroni M, et al. Cutaneous metastatic breast carcinoma: a study of 164 patients. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2000;9:143-148.
- Culver AL, Metter DM, Pippen JE Jr. Carcinoma en cuirasse. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019;32:263-265. doi:10.1080/08998280.2018.1564966
- Schoenlaub P, Sarraux A, Grosshans E, et al. Survival after cutaneous metastasis: a study of 200 cases [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2001;128:1310-1315.
- Tan AR. Cutaneous manifestations of breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2016;43:331-334. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.02.030
- Song Y, Wu Y, Fan T. Dermatosis as the initial manifestation of malignant breast tumors: retrospective analysis of 4 cases. Breast Care. 2010;5:174-176. doi:10.1159/000314265
- Polisky RB, Bronson DM. Acquired ichthyosis in a patient with adenocarcinoma of the breast. Cutis. 1986;38:359-360.
- Haste AR. Acquired ichthyosis from breast cancer. Br Med J. 1967;4:96-98.
- Riesco Martínez MC, Muñoz Martín AJ, Zamberk Majlis P, et al. Acquired ichthyosis as a paraneoplastic syndrome in Hodgkin’s disease. Clin Transl Oncol. 2009;11:552-553. doi:10.1007/s12094-009-0402-2
- Siddiqui MA, Zaman MN. Primary carcinoma en cuirasse. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:221-222. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb02455.xssss
The Diagnosis: Carcinoma en Cuirasse
Histopathology demonstrated a cellular infiltrate filling the dermis with sparing of the papillary and superficial reticular dermis (Figure 1A). The cells were arranged in strands and cords that infiltrated between sclerotic collagen bundles. Cytomorphologically, the cells ranged from epithelioid with large vesicular nuclei and prominent nucleoli to cuboidal with hyperchromatic nuclei with irregular contours and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio (Figure 1B). Occasional mitotic figures were identified, and cells demonstrated diffuse nuclear positivity for GATA-3 (Figure 1C); 55% of the cells demonstrated estrogen receptor positivity, and immunohistochemistry of progesterone receptors was negative. These findings confirmed our patient’s diagnosis of breast carcinoma en cuirasse (CeC) as the primary manifestation of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma. Our patient was treated with intravenous chemotherapy and tamoxifen.
Histopathologic findings of morphea include thickened hyalinized collagen bundles and loss of adventitial fat.1 A diagnosis of chronic radiation dermatitis was inconsistent with our patient’s medical history and biopsy results, as pathology should reveal hyalinized collagen or stellate radiation fibroblasts.2,3 Nests of squamous epithelial cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and large vesicular nuclei were not seen, excluding squamous cell carcinoma as a possible diagnosis.4 Although sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma is characterized by infiltrating cords in sclerotic dermis, the cells were not arranged in ductlike structures 1– to 2–cell layers thick, excluding this diagnosis.5
Carcinoma en cuirasse—named for skin involvement that appears similar to the metal breastplate of a cuirassier—is a rare form of cutaneous metastasis that typically presents with extensive infiltrative plaques resulting in fibrosis of the skin and subcutaneous tissue.6,7 Carcinoma en cuirasse most commonly metastasizes from the breast but also may represent metastases from the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or genitourinary systems.8 In the setting of a primary breast malignancy, metastatic plaques of CeC tend to represent tumor recurrence following a mastectomy procedure; however, in rare cases CeC can present as the primary manifestation of breast cancer or as a result of untreated malignancy.6,9 In our patient, CeC was the primary manifestation of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma with additional paraneoplastic ichthyosis (Figure 2).
Carcinoma en cuirasse comprises 3% to 6% of cutaneous metastases originating from the breast.10,11 Breast cancer is the most common primary neoplasm displaying extracutaneous metastasis, comprising 70% of all cutaneous metastases in females.11 Cutaneous metastasis often indicates late stage of disease, portending a poor prognosis. In our patient, the cutaneous nodules were present for approximately 3 years prior to the diagnosis of stage IV invasive ductal cell carcinoma with metastasis to the skin and lungs. Prior to admission, she had not been diagnosed with breast cancer, thus no treatments had been administered. It is uncommon for CeC to present as the initial finding and without prior treatment of the underlying malignancy. The median length of survival after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis from breast cancer is 13.8 months, with a 10-year survival rate of 3.1%.12
In addition to cutaneous metastasis, breast cancer also may present with paraneoplastic dermatoses such as ichthyosis.13 Ichthyosis is characterized by extreme dryness, flaking, thickening, and mild pruritus.14 It most commonly is an inherited condition, but it may be acquired due to malignancy. Acquired ichthyosis may manifest in systemic diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis, and hypothyroidism.15 Although acquired ichthyosis is rare, it has been reported in cases of internal malignancy, most commonly lymphoproliferative malignancies and less frequently carcinoma of the breasts, cervix, and lungs. Patients who acquire ichthyosis in association with malignancy usually present with late-stage disease.15 Our patient acquired ichthyosis 3 months prior to admission and had never experienced it previously. Although the exact mechanism for acquiring ichthyosis remains unknown, it is uncertain if ichthyosis associated with malignancy is paraneoplastic or a result of chemotherapy.14,16 In this case, the patient had not yet started chemotherapy at the time of the ichthyosis diagnosis, suggesting a paraneoplastic etiology.
Carcinoma en cuirasse and paraneoplastic ichthyosis individually are extremely rare manifestations of breast cancer. Thus, it is even rarer for these conditions to present concurrently. Treatment options for CeC include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal antagonists, and snake venom.11 Systemic chemotherapy targeting the histopathologic type of the primary tumor is the treatment of choice. Other treatment methods usually are chosen for late stages of disease progression.10 Paraneoplastic ichthyosis has been reported to show improvement with treatment of the underlying primary malignancy by surgical removal or chemotherapy.14,17 Tamoxifen less commonly is used for systemic treatment of CeC, but one case in the literature reported favorable outcomes.18
We describe 2 rare cutaneous manifestations of breast cancer occurring concomitantly: CeC and paraneoplastic ichthyosis. The combination of clinical and pathologic findings presented in this case solidified the diagnosis of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma. We aim to improve recognition of paraneoplastic skin findings to accelerate the process of effective and efficient treatment.
The Diagnosis: Carcinoma en Cuirasse
Histopathology demonstrated a cellular infiltrate filling the dermis with sparing of the papillary and superficial reticular dermis (Figure 1A). The cells were arranged in strands and cords that infiltrated between sclerotic collagen bundles. Cytomorphologically, the cells ranged from epithelioid with large vesicular nuclei and prominent nucleoli to cuboidal with hyperchromatic nuclei with irregular contours and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio (Figure 1B). Occasional mitotic figures were identified, and cells demonstrated diffuse nuclear positivity for GATA-3 (Figure 1C); 55% of the cells demonstrated estrogen receptor positivity, and immunohistochemistry of progesterone receptors was negative. These findings confirmed our patient’s diagnosis of breast carcinoma en cuirasse (CeC) as the primary manifestation of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma. Our patient was treated with intravenous chemotherapy and tamoxifen.
Histopathologic findings of morphea include thickened hyalinized collagen bundles and loss of adventitial fat.1 A diagnosis of chronic radiation dermatitis was inconsistent with our patient’s medical history and biopsy results, as pathology should reveal hyalinized collagen or stellate radiation fibroblasts.2,3 Nests of squamous epithelial cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and large vesicular nuclei were not seen, excluding squamous cell carcinoma as a possible diagnosis.4 Although sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma is characterized by infiltrating cords in sclerotic dermis, the cells were not arranged in ductlike structures 1– to 2–cell layers thick, excluding this diagnosis.5
Carcinoma en cuirasse—named for skin involvement that appears similar to the metal breastplate of a cuirassier—is a rare form of cutaneous metastasis that typically presents with extensive infiltrative plaques resulting in fibrosis of the skin and subcutaneous tissue.6,7 Carcinoma en cuirasse most commonly metastasizes from the breast but also may represent metastases from the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or genitourinary systems.8 In the setting of a primary breast malignancy, metastatic plaques of CeC tend to represent tumor recurrence following a mastectomy procedure; however, in rare cases CeC can present as the primary manifestation of breast cancer or as a result of untreated malignancy.6,9 In our patient, CeC was the primary manifestation of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma with additional paraneoplastic ichthyosis (Figure 2).
Carcinoma en cuirasse comprises 3% to 6% of cutaneous metastases originating from the breast.10,11 Breast cancer is the most common primary neoplasm displaying extracutaneous metastasis, comprising 70% of all cutaneous metastases in females.11 Cutaneous metastasis often indicates late stage of disease, portending a poor prognosis. In our patient, the cutaneous nodules were present for approximately 3 years prior to the diagnosis of stage IV invasive ductal cell carcinoma with metastasis to the skin and lungs. Prior to admission, she had not been diagnosed with breast cancer, thus no treatments had been administered. It is uncommon for CeC to present as the initial finding and without prior treatment of the underlying malignancy. The median length of survival after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis from breast cancer is 13.8 months, with a 10-year survival rate of 3.1%.12
In addition to cutaneous metastasis, breast cancer also may present with paraneoplastic dermatoses such as ichthyosis.13 Ichthyosis is characterized by extreme dryness, flaking, thickening, and mild pruritus.14 It most commonly is an inherited condition, but it may be acquired due to malignancy. Acquired ichthyosis may manifest in systemic diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis, and hypothyroidism.15 Although acquired ichthyosis is rare, it has been reported in cases of internal malignancy, most commonly lymphoproliferative malignancies and less frequently carcinoma of the breasts, cervix, and lungs. Patients who acquire ichthyosis in association with malignancy usually present with late-stage disease.15 Our patient acquired ichthyosis 3 months prior to admission and had never experienced it previously. Although the exact mechanism for acquiring ichthyosis remains unknown, it is uncertain if ichthyosis associated with malignancy is paraneoplastic or a result of chemotherapy.14,16 In this case, the patient had not yet started chemotherapy at the time of the ichthyosis diagnosis, suggesting a paraneoplastic etiology.
Carcinoma en cuirasse and paraneoplastic ichthyosis individually are extremely rare manifestations of breast cancer. Thus, it is even rarer for these conditions to present concurrently. Treatment options for CeC include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal antagonists, and snake venom.11 Systemic chemotherapy targeting the histopathologic type of the primary tumor is the treatment of choice. Other treatment methods usually are chosen for late stages of disease progression.10 Paraneoplastic ichthyosis has been reported to show improvement with treatment of the underlying primary malignancy by surgical removal or chemotherapy.14,17 Tamoxifen less commonly is used for systemic treatment of CeC, but one case in the literature reported favorable outcomes.18
We describe 2 rare cutaneous manifestations of breast cancer occurring concomitantly: CeC and paraneoplastic ichthyosis. The combination of clinical and pathologic findings presented in this case solidified the diagnosis of metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma. We aim to improve recognition of paraneoplastic skin findings to accelerate the process of effective and efficient treatment.
- Walker D, Susa JS, Currimbhoy S, et al. Histopathological changes in morphea and their clinical correlates: results from the Morphea in Adults and Children Cohort V. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:1124-1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.020
- Borrelli MR, Shen AH, Lee GK, et al. Radiation-induced skin fibrosis: pathogenesis, current treatment options, and emerging therapeutics. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83(4 suppl 1):S59-S64. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002098
- Boncher J, Bergfeld WF. Fluoroscopy-induced chronic radiation dermatitis: a report of two additional cases and a brief review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2012;39:63-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1600-0560.2011.01754.x
- Cassarino DS, Derienzo DP, Barr RJ. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive clinicopathologic classification. part one. J Cutan Pathol. 2006;33:191-206. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.0303-6987.2006.00516_1.x
- Harvey DT, Hu J, Long JA, et al. Sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma of the lower extremity treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. JAAD Case Rep. 2016;2:284-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdcr.2016.05.017
- Sharma V, Kumar A. Carcinoma en cuirasse. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2562. doi:10.1056/NEJMicm2111669
- Oliveira GM, Zachetti DB, Barros HR, et al. Breast carcinoma en cuirasse—case report. An Bras Dermatol. 2013;88:608-610. doi:10.1590/abd1806-4841.20131926
- Alcaraz I, Cerroni L, Rütten A, et al. Cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical review. Am J Dermatopathol. 2012;34:347-393. doi:10.1097 /DAD.0b013e31823069cf
- Glazebrook AJ, Tomaszewski W. Ichthyosiform atrophy of the skin in Hodgkin’s disease: report of a case, with reference to vitamin A metabolism. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1944;50:85-89. doi:10.1001 /archderm.1944.01510140008002
- Mordenti C, Concetta F, Cerroni M, et al. Cutaneous metastatic breast carcinoma: a study of 164 patients. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2000;9:143-148.
- Culver AL, Metter DM, Pippen JE Jr. Carcinoma en cuirasse. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019;32:263-265. doi:10.1080/08998280.2018.1564966
- Schoenlaub P, Sarraux A, Grosshans E, et al. Survival after cutaneous metastasis: a study of 200 cases [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2001;128:1310-1315.
- Tan AR. Cutaneous manifestations of breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2016;43:331-334. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.02.030
- Song Y, Wu Y, Fan T. Dermatosis as the initial manifestation of malignant breast tumors: retrospective analysis of 4 cases. Breast Care. 2010;5:174-176. doi:10.1159/000314265
- Polisky RB, Bronson DM. Acquired ichthyosis in a patient with adenocarcinoma of the breast. Cutis. 1986;38:359-360.
- Haste AR. Acquired ichthyosis from breast cancer. Br Med J. 1967;4:96-98.
- Riesco Martínez MC, Muñoz Martín AJ, Zamberk Majlis P, et al. Acquired ichthyosis as a paraneoplastic syndrome in Hodgkin’s disease. Clin Transl Oncol. 2009;11:552-553. doi:10.1007/s12094-009-0402-2
- Siddiqui MA, Zaman MN. Primary carcinoma en cuirasse. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:221-222. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb02455.xssss
- Walker D, Susa JS, Currimbhoy S, et al. Histopathological changes in morphea and their clinical correlates: results from the Morphea in Adults and Children Cohort V. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:1124-1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.020
- Borrelli MR, Shen AH, Lee GK, et al. Radiation-induced skin fibrosis: pathogenesis, current treatment options, and emerging therapeutics. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83(4 suppl 1):S59-S64. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002098
- Boncher J, Bergfeld WF. Fluoroscopy-induced chronic radiation dermatitis: a report of two additional cases and a brief review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2012;39:63-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1600-0560.2011.01754.x
- Cassarino DS, Derienzo DP, Barr RJ. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive clinicopathologic classification. part one. J Cutan Pathol. 2006;33:191-206. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.0303-6987.2006.00516_1.x
- Harvey DT, Hu J, Long JA, et al. Sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma of the lower extremity treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. JAAD Case Rep. 2016;2:284-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdcr.2016.05.017
- Sharma V, Kumar A. Carcinoma en cuirasse. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2562. doi:10.1056/NEJMicm2111669
- Oliveira GM, Zachetti DB, Barros HR, et al. Breast carcinoma en cuirasse—case report. An Bras Dermatol. 2013;88:608-610. doi:10.1590/abd1806-4841.20131926
- Alcaraz I, Cerroni L, Rütten A, et al. Cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical review. Am J Dermatopathol. 2012;34:347-393. doi:10.1097 /DAD.0b013e31823069cf
- Glazebrook AJ, Tomaszewski W. Ichthyosiform atrophy of the skin in Hodgkin’s disease: report of a case, with reference to vitamin A metabolism. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1944;50:85-89. doi:10.1001 /archderm.1944.01510140008002
- Mordenti C, Concetta F, Cerroni M, et al. Cutaneous metastatic breast carcinoma: a study of 164 patients. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2000;9:143-148.
- Culver AL, Metter DM, Pippen JE Jr. Carcinoma en cuirasse. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019;32:263-265. doi:10.1080/08998280.2018.1564966
- Schoenlaub P, Sarraux A, Grosshans E, et al. Survival after cutaneous metastasis: a study of 200 cases [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2001;128:1310-1315.
- Tan AR. Cutaneous manifestations of breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2016;43:331-334. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.02.030
- Song Y, Wu Y, Fan T. Dermatosis as the initial manifestation of malignant breast tumors: retrospective analysis of 4 cases. Breast Care. 2010;5:174-176. doi:10.1159/000314265
- Polisky RB, Bronson DM. Acquired ichthyosis in a patient with adenocarcinoma of the breast. Cutis. 1986;38:359-360.
- Haste AR. Acquired ichthyosis from breast cancer. Br Med J. 1967;4:96-98.
- Riesco Martínez MC, Muñoz Martín AJ, Zamberk Majlis P, et al. Acquired ichthyosis as a paraneoplastic syndrome in Hodgkin’s disease. Clin Transl Oncol. 2009;11:552-553. doi:10.1007/s12094-009-0402-2
- Siddiqui MA, Zaman MN. Primary carcinoma en cuirasse. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:221-222. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb02455.xssss
A 47-year-old woman with no notable medical history presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath on simple exertion as well as a large lesion on the chest that had slowly increased in size over the last 3 years. The lesion was not painful or pruritic, and she had been treating it with topical emollients without substantial improvement. Physical examination revealed a large indurated plaque with areas of ulceration and necrosis spanning the mid to lateral chest. Additionally, ichthyotic brown scaling was present on the arms and legs. Upon further questioning, the patient reported that the scales on the extremities appeared in the last 3 months and were not previously noted. She had no recent routine cancer screenings, and her family history was notable for a brother with brain cancer. A punch biopsy of the chest plaque was performed.
Fellowships in Complex Medical Dermatology
Complex medical dermatology has become an emerging field in dermatology. Although a rather protean and broad term, complex medical dermatology encompasses patients with autoimmune conditions, bullous disease, connective tissue disease, vasculitis, severe dermatoses requiring immunomodulation, and inpatient consultations. Importantly, dermatology inpatient consultations aid in lowering health care costs due to accurate diagnoses, correct treatment, and decreased hospital stays.1 A fellowship is not required for holding an inpatient role in the hospital system as a dermatologist but can be beneficial. There are combined internal medicine–dermatology programs available for medical students applying to dermatology residency, but a complex medical dermatology fellowship is an option after residency for those who are interested. I believe that a focused complex medical dermatology fellowship differs from the training offered in combined internal medicine–dermatology residency. My fellow colleagues in combined internal medicine–dermatology programs are exposed to systemic manifestations of cutaneous disease and are experts in the interplay between the skin and other organ systems. However, the focus of their programs is with the intention of becoming double boarded in internal medicine and dermatology with comprehensive exposure to both fields. In my fellowship, I am able to tailor my schedule to focus on any dermatologic disease such as connective tissue disease, pruritus, graft vs host disease, and Merkel cell carcinoma. I ultimately can determine a niche in dermatology and hone my skills for a year under supervision.
Available Fellowships
Fellowship Locations—Importantly, the complex medical dermatology fellowship is not accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which can make it difficult to identify and apply to programs. The complex medical dermatology fellowship is different than a rheumatology-dermatology fellowship, cutaneous oncology fellowship, pediatric dermatology fellowship, or other subspecialty fellowships such as those in itch or autoimmune blistering diseases. The fellowship often encompasses gaining clinical expertise in many of these conditions. I performed a thorough search online and spoke with complex medical dermatologists to compile a list of programs that offer a complex medical dermatology fellowship: Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts); University of California San Francisco (San Francisco, California); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, Ohio); and New York University (New York, New York)(Table). Only 1 spot is offered at each of these programs.
Reason to Pursue the Fellowship—There are many reasons to pursue a fellowship in complex medical dermatology such as a desire to enhance exposure to the field, to practice in an academic center and develop a niche within dermatology, to practice dermatology in an inpatient setting, to improve delivery of health care to medically challenging populations in a community setting, and to become an expert on cutaneous manifestations of internal and systemic disease.
Application—There is no standardized application or deadline for this fellowship; however, there is a concerted attempt from some of the programs to offer interviews and decisions at a similar time. Deadlines and contact information are listed on the program websites, along with more details (Table).
Recommendations—I would recommend reaching out at the beginning of postgraduate year (PGY) 4 to these programs and voicing your interest in the fellowship. It is possible to set up an away rotation at some of the programs, and if your program offers elective time, pursuing an away rotation during PGY-3 or early in PGY-4 can prove to be advantageous. Furthermore, during my application cycle I toured the University of California San Francisco, University of Pennsylvania, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital to gain further insight into each program.
Brigham and Women’s Complex Medical Dermatology Fellowship
I am currently the complex medical dermatology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and it has been an outstanding experience thus far. The program offers numerous subspecialty clinics focusing solely on cutaneous-oncodermatology, psoriasis, rheumatology-dermatology, skin of color, mole mapping backed by artificial intelligence, cosmetics, high-risk skin cancer, neutrophilic dermatoses, patch testing, phototherapy, psychodermatology, and transplant dermatology. In addition to a wide variety of subspecialty clinics, fellows have the opportunity to participate in inpatient dermatology rounds and act as a junior attending. I appreciate the flexibility of this program combined with the ability to work alongside worldwide experts. There are numerous teaching opportunities, and all of the faculty are amiable and intelligent and emphasize wellness, education, and autonomy. Overall, my experience and decision to pursue a complex medical dermatology fellowship has been extremely rewarding and invaluable. I am gaining additional skills to aid medically challenging patients while pursuing my true passion in dermatology.
1. Sahni DR. Inpatient dermatology consultation services in hospital institutions. Cutis. 2023;111:E11-E12. doi:10.12788/cutis.0776.
Complex medical dermatology has become an emerging field in dermatology. Although a rather protean and broad term, complex medical dermatology encompasses patients with autoimmune conditions, bullous disease, connective tissue disease, vasculitis, severe dermatoses requiring immunomodulation, and inpatient consultations. Importantly, dermatology inpatient consultations aid in lowering health care costs due to accurate diagnoses, correct treatment, and decreased hospital stays.1 A fellowship is not required for holding an inpatient role in the hospital system as a dermatologist but can be beneficial. There are combined internal medicine–dermatology programs available for medical students applying to dermatology residency, but a complex medical dermatology fellowship is an option after residency for those who are interested. I believe that a focused complex medical dermatology fellowship differs from the training offered in combined internal medicine–dermatology residency. My fellow colleagues in combined internal medicine–dermatology programs are exposed to systemic manifestations of cutaneous disease and are experts in the interplay between the skin and other organ systems. However, the focus of their programs is with the intention of becoming double boarded in internal medicine and dermatology with comprehensive exposure to both fields. In my fellowship, I am able to tailor my schedule to focus on any dermatologic disease such as connective tissue disease, pruritus, graft vs host disease, and Merkel cell carcinoma. I ultimately can determine a niche in dermatology and hone my skills for a year under supervision.
Available Fellowships
Fellowship Locations—Importantly, the complex medical dermatology fellowship is not accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which can make it difficult to identify and apply to programs. The complex medical dermatology fellowship is different than a rheumatology-dermatology fellowship, cutaneous oncology fellowship, pediatric dermatology fellowship, or other subspecialty fellowships such as those in itch or autoimmune blistering diseases. The fellowship often encompasses gaining clinical expertise in many of these conditions. I performed a thorough search online and spoke with complex medical dermatologists to compile a list of programs that offer a complex medical dermatology fellowship: Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts); University of California San Francisco (San Francisco, California); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, Ohio); and New York University (New York, New York)(Table). Only 1 spot is offered at each of these programs.
Reason to Pursue the Fellowship—There are many reasons to pursue a fellowship in complex medical dermatology such as a desire to enhance exposure to the field, to practice in an academic center and develop a niche within dermatology, to practice dermatology in an inpatient setting, to improve delivery of health care to medically challenging populations in a community setting, and to become an expert on cutaneous manifestations of internal and systemic disease.
Application—There is no standardized application or deadline for this fellowship; however, there is a concerted attempt from some of the programs to offer interviews and decisions at a similar time. Deadlines and contact information are listed on the program websites, along with more details (Table).
Recommendations—I would recommend reaching out at the beginning of postgraduate year (PGY) 4 to these programs and voicing your interest in the fellowship. It is possible to set up an away rotation at some of the programs, and if your program offers elective time, pursuing an away rotation during PGY-3 or early in PGY-4 can prove to be advantageous. Furthermore, during my application cycle I toured the University of California San Francisco, University of Pennsylvania, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital to gain further insight into each program.
Brigham and Women’s Complex Medical Dermatology Fellowship
I am currently the complex medical dermatology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and it has been an outstanding experience thus far. The program offers numerous subspecialty clinics focusing solely on cutaneous-oncodermatology, psoriasis, rheumatology-dermatology, skin of color, mole mapping backed by artificial intelligence, cosmetics, high-risk skin cancer, neutrophilic dermatoses, patch testing, phototherapy, psychodermatology, and transplant dermatology. In addition to a wide variety of subspecialty clinics, fellows have the opportunity to participate in inpatient dermatology rounds and act as a junior attending. I appreciate the flexibility of this program combined with the ability to work alongside worldwide experts. There are numerous teaching opportunities, and all of the faculty are amiable and intelligent and emphasize wellness, education, and autonomy. Overall, my experience and decision to pursue a complex medical dermatology fellowship has been extremely rewarding and invaluable. I am gaining additional skills to aid medically challenging patients while pursuing my true passion in dermatology.
Complex medical dermatology has become an emerging field in dermatology. Although a rather protean and broad term, complex medical dermatology encompasses patients with autoimmune conditions, bullous disease, connective tissue disease, vasculitis, severe dermatoses requiring immunomodulation, and inpatient consultations. Importantly, dermatology inpatient consultations aid in lowering health care costs due to accurate diagnoses, correct treatment, and decreased hospital stays.1 A fellowship is not required for holding an inpatient role in the hospital system as a dermatologist but can be beneficial. There are combined internal medicine–dermatology programs available for medical students applying to dermatology residency, but a complex medical dermatology fellowship is an option after residency for those who are interested. I believe that a focused complex medical dermatology fellowship differs from the training offered in combined internal medicine–dermatology residency. My fellow colleagues in combined internal medicine–dermatology programs are exposed to systemic manifestations of cutaneous disease and are experts in the interplay between the skin and other organ systems. However, the focus of their programs is with the intention of becoming double boarded in internal medicine and dermatology with comprehensive exposure to both fields. In my fellowship, I am able to tailor my schedule to focus on any dermatologic disease such as connective tissue disease, pruritus, graft vs host disease, and Merkel cell carcinoma. I ultimately can determine a niche in dermatology and hone my skills for a year under supervision.
Available Fellowships
Fellowship Locations—Importantly, the complex medical dermatology fellowship is not accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which can make it difficult to identify and apply to programs. The complex medical dermatology fellowship is different than a rheumatology-dermatology fellowship, cutaneous oncology fellowship, pediatric dermatology fellowship, or other subspecialty fellowships such as those in itch or autoimmune blistering diseases. The fellowship often encompasses gaining clinical expertise in many of these conditions. I performed a thorough search online and spoke with complex medical dermatologists to compile a list of programs that offer a complex medical dermatology fellowship: Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts); University of California San Francisco (San Francisco, California); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, Ohio); and New York University (New York, New York)(Table). Only 1 spot is offered at each of these programs.
Reason to Pursue the Fellowship—There are many reasons to pursue a fellowship in complex medical dermatology such as a desire to enhance exposure to the field, to practice in an academic center and develop a niche within dermatology, to practice dermatology in an inpatient setting, to improve delivery of health care to medically challenging populations in a community setting, and to become an expert on cutaneous manifestations of internal and systemic disease.
Application—There is no standardized application or deadline for this fellowship; however, there is a concerted attempt from some of the programs to offer interviews and decisions at a similar time. Deadlines and contact information are listed on the program websites, along with more details (Table).
Recommendations—I would recommend reaching out at the beginning of postgraduate year (PGY) 4 to these programs and voicing your interest in the fellowship. It is possible to set up an away rotation at some of the programs, and if your program offers elective time, pursuing an away rotation during PGY-3 or early in PGY-4 can prove to be advantageous. Furthermore, during my application cycle I toured the University of California San Francisco, University of Pennsylvania, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital to gain further insight into each program.
Brigham and Women’s Complex Medical Dermatology Fellowship
I am currently the complex medical dermatology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and it has been an outstanding experience thus far. The program offers numerous subspecialty clinics focusing solely on cutaneous-oncodermatology, psoriasis, rheumatology-dermatology, skin of color, mole mapping backed by artificial intelligence, cosmetics, high-risk skin cancer, neutrophilic dermatoses, patch testing, phototherapy, psychodermatology, and transplant dermatology. In addition to a wide variety of subspecialty clinics, fellows have the opportunity to participate in inpatient dermatology rounds and act as a junior attending. I appreciate the flexibility of this program combined with the ability to work alongside worldwide experts. There are numerous teaching opportunities, and all of the faculty are amiable and intelligent and emphasize wellness, education, and autonomy. Overall, my experience and decision to pursue a complex medical dermatology fellowship has been extremely rewarding and invaluable. I am gaining additional skills to aid medically challenging patients while pursuing my true passion in dermatology.
1. Sahni DR. Inpatient dermatology consultation services in hospital institutions. Cutis. 2023;111:E11-E12. doi:10.12788/cutis.0776.
1. Sahni DR. Inpatient dermatology consultation services in hospital institutions. Cutis. 2023;111:E11-E12. doi:10.12788/cutis.0776.
RESIDENT PEARL
- Complex medical dermatology is a rewarding and fascinating subspecialty of dermatology, and additional training can be accomplished through a fellowship at a variety of prestigious institutions.
Sickle Cell: Good Outcomes for Haploidentical Transplants
Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”
Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”
In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.
“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”
Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”
For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.
“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”
“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.
Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”
The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.
“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”
As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”
As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.
Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”
Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.
Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”
Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”
In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.
“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”
Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”
For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.
“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”
“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.
Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”
The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.
“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”
As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”
As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.
Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”
Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.
Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”
Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”
In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.
“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”
Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”
For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.
“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”
“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.
Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”
The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.
“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”
As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”
As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.
Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”
Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
Measurable residual disease–guided therapy promising for CLL
The targeted therapy combination was also associated with better progression-free survival among patients with CLL with worse prognostic features, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) unmutated disease and cytogenetic abnormalities, such as the 11q deletion, trisomy 12, and 13q deletion.
Personalizing treatment duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax, as determined by measurable residual disease (MRD), allowed more than half of patients assigned to the combination therapy to stop therapy by 3 years because they had achieved MRD negativity, reported Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, from the Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, United Kingdom.
The shorter course of therapy could help to ameliorate toxicities and lower the risk for the development of drug-resistant disease, he said.
“This is the first trial to show that an MRD-guided approach with treatment beyond [MRD] negativity has a significant advantage over chemoimmunotherapy, both in terms of [progression-free] and overall survival. Over 90% of patients achieve an MRD-negative in this combination in the peripheral blood,” said Dr. Hillmen in a media briefing prior to his presentation of the data in an oral abstract session here at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study results were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
Adaptive Trial
The FLAIR study is a phase 3 open-label platform trial that initially compared ibrutinib-rituximab with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) in patients with untreated CLL. However, in 2017 the trial was adapted to include both an ibrutinib monotherapy and an ibrutinib-venetoclax arm with therapy duration determined by MRD.
At ASH 2023, Dr. Hillmen presented data from an interim analysis of 523 patients comparing ibrutinib-venetoclax with FCR.
In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg daily, with venetoclax added after 2 months, beginning with a 20-mg dose ramped up to 400 mg in a weekly dose-escalation schedule. The combination could be given for 2-6 years, depending on MRD responses. FCR was delivered in up to six cycles of 28 days each. Two thirds of patients assigned to FCR completed all six cycles.
After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 12 patients (4.6%) randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had disease progression or died compared with 75 patients (28.5%) assigned to FCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival with ibrutinib-venetoclax was 97.2%, compared with 76.8% with FCR, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death with the targeted therapy combination of 0.13 (P <.001).
Among patients with unmutated IGHV, the combination led to improved progression-free survival compared with FCR (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.07); for patients with mutated IGHV, however, the combination did not improve progression-free survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.38).
In all, eight patients (3.5%) assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 23 assigned to FCR (9.5%) died.
The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% in the targeted therapy group vs 93% in the FCR group (HR for progression or death, 0.31).
At 2 years, 52.4% of patients assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had undetectable MRD in bone marrow compared with 49.8% with FCR. At 5 years, the respective percentages for MRD in bone marrow were 65.9% vs 49.8% and 92.7% vs 67.9% for MRD in peripheral blood.
The safety analysis showed higher rates of blood and lymphatic system disorders with FCR, whereas cardiac, metabolic/nutrition disorders, and eye disorders occurred more frequent with ibrutinib-venetoclax.
A total of 24 secondary cancers were diagnosed in 17 patients randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 45 secondary cancers among 34 patients randomly assigned to FCR. One patient assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax developed myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as did eight patients assigned to FCR. One patient in the ibrutinib-venetoclax arm and four patients in the FCR arm had Richter’s transformation.
The incidence rate for other cancers was 2.6 per 100 person-years with ibrutinib-venetoclax compared with 5.4 per 100 person-years with FCR.
The most frequently occurring cancers in each arm were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes, AML lymphoma, and prostate/urologic cancers was higher among patients on FCR.
This research “unequivocally shows the superiority of targeted therapy over traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy,” commented briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
The ibrutinib-venetoclax combination has the potential to reduce the incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to CLL therapy, Dr. Sekeres suggested.
“As someone who specializes in leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, I have the feeling I won’t be seeing these CLL patients in my clinic — years after being treated for CLL — much longer,” he said.
In an interview with this news organization, Lee Greenberger, PhD, said that “I think that duration-adapted therapy is a great story. Using MRD negativity is a perfectly justified way, I think, to go about a new combination that’s going to be really potent for CLL patients and probably give them many years of treatment and then to get off the drug, because ultimately the goal is to get cures.”
This combination, though highly efficacious, is unlikely to be curative; however, because even when MRD is undetectable, “it will come back,” said Dr. Greenberger, chief scientific officer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Dr. Greenberger added that MRD testing of bone marrow, which provides a more detailed picture of MRD status than testing of peripheral blood, is feasible in academic medical centers but may be a barrier to MRD-adapted therapy in community oncology practices.
The FLAIR study is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and AbbVie. Dr. Hillmen disclosed employment and equity participation with Apellis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sekeres disclosed board activities for Geron, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and owner of stock options Kurome. Dr. Greenberger reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The targeted therapy combination was also associated with better progression-free survival among patients with CLL with worse prognostic features, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) unmutated disease and cytogenetic abnormalities, such as the 11q deletion, trisomy 12, and 13q deletion.
Personalizing treatment duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax, as determined by measurable residual disease (MRD), allowed more than half of patients assigned to the combination therapy to stop therapy by 3 years because they had achieved MRD negativity, reported Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, from the Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, United Kingdom.
The shorter course of therapy could help to ameliorate toxicities and lower the risk for the development of drug-resistant disease, he said.
“This is the first trial to show that an MRD-guided approach with treatment beyond [MRD] negativity has a significant advantage over chemoimmunotherapy, both in terms of [progression-free] and overall survival. Over 90% of patients achieve an MRD-negative in this combination in the peripheral blood,” said Dr. Hillmen in a media briefing prior to his presentation of the data in an oral abstract session here at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study results were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
Adaptive Trial
The FLAIR study is a phase 3 open-label platform trial that initially compared ibrutinib-rituximab with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) in patients with untreated CLL. However, in 2017 the trial was adapted to include both an ibrutinib monotherapy and an ibrutinib-venetoclax arm with therapy duration determined by MRD.
At ASH 2023, Dr. Hillmen presented data from an interim analysis of 523 patients comparing ibrutinib-venetoclax with FCR.
In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg daily, with venetoclax added after 2 months, beginning with a 20-mg dose ramped up to 400 mg in a weekly dose-escalation schedule. The combination could be given for 2-6 years, depending on MRD responses. FCR was delivered in up to six cycles of 28 days each. Two thirds of patients assigned to FCR completed all six cycles.
After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 12 patients (4.6%) randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had disease progression or died compared with 75 patients (28.5%) assigned to FCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival with ibrutinib-venetoclax was 97.2%, compared with 76.8% with FCR, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death with the targeted therapy combination of 0.13 (P <.001).
Among patients with unmutated IGHV, the combination led to improved progression-free survival compared with FCR (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.07); for patients with mutated IGHV, however, the combination did not improve progression-free survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.38).
In all, eight patients (3.5%) assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 23 assigned to FCR (9.5%) died.
The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% in the targeted therapy group vs 93% in the FCR group (HR for progression or death, 0.31).
At 2 years, 52.4% of patients assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had undetectable MRD in bone marrow compared with 49.8% with FCR. At 5 years, the respective percentages for MRD in bone marrow were 65.9% vs 49.8% and 92.7% vs 67.9% for MRD in peripheral blood.
The safety analysis showed higher rates of blood and lymphatic system disorders with FCR, whereas cardiac, metabolic/nutrition disorders, and eye disorders occurred more frequent with ibrutinib-venetoclax.
A total of 24 secondary cancers were diagnosed in 17 patients randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 45 secondary cancers among 34 patients randomly assigned to FCR. One patient assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax developed myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as did eight patients assigned to FCR. One patient in the ibrutinib-venetoclax arm and four patients in the FCR arm had Richter’s transformation.
The incidence rate for other cancers was 2.6 per 100 person-years with ibrutinib-venetoclax compared with 5.4 per 100 person-years with FCR.
The most frequently occurring cancers in each arm were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes, AML lymphoma, and prostate/urologic cancers was higher among patients on FCR.
This research “unequivocally shows the superiority of targeted therapy over traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy,” commented briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
The ibrutinib-venetoclax combination has the potential to reduce the incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to CLL therapy, Dr. Sekeres suggested.
“As someone who specializes in leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, I have the feeling I won’t be seeing these CLL patients in my clinic — years after being treated for CLL — much longer,” he said.
In an interview with this news organization, Lee Greenberger, PhD, said that “I think that duration-adapted therapy is a great story. Using MRD negativity is a perfectly justified way, I think, to go about a new combination that’s going to be really potent for CLL patients and probably give them many years of treatment and then to get off the drug, because ultimately the goal is to get cures.”
This combination, though highly efficacious, is unlikely to be curative; however, because even when MRD is undetectable, “it will come back,” said Dr. Greenberger, chief scientific officer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Dr. Greenberger added that MRD testing of bone marrow, which provides a more detailed picture of MRD status than testing of peripheral blood, is feasible in academic medical centers but may be a barrier to MRD-adapted therapy in community oncology practices.
The FLAIR study is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and AbbVie. Dr. Hillmen disclosed employment and equity participation with Apellis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sekeres disclosed board activities for Geron, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and owner of stock options Kurome. Dr. Greenberger reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The targeted therapy combination was also associated with better progression-free survival among patients with CLL with worse prognostic features, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) unmutated disease and cytogenetic abnormalities, such as the 11q deletion, trisomy 12, and 13q deletion.
Personalizing treatment duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax, as determined by measurable residual disease (MRD), allowed more than half of patients assigned to the combination therapy to stop therapy by 3 years because they had achieved MRD negativity, reported Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, from the Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, United Kingdom.
The shorter course of therapy could help to ameliorate toxicities and lower the risk for the development of drug-resistant disease, he said.
“This is the first trial to show that an MRD-guided approach with treatment beyond [MRD] negativity has a significant advantage over chemoimmunotherapy, both in terms of [progression-free] and overall survival. Over 90% of patients achieve an MRD-negative in this combination in the peripheral blood,” said Dr. Hillmen in a media briefing prior to his presentation of the data in an oral abstract session here at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study results were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
Adaptive Trial
The FLAIR study is a phase 3 open-label platform trial that initially compared ibrutinib-rituximab with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) in patients with untreated CLL. However, in 2017 the trial was adapted to include both an ibrutinib monotherapy and an ibrutinib-venetoclax arm with therapy duration determined by MRD.
At ASH 2023, Dr. Hillmen presented data from an interim analysis of 523 patients comparing ibrutinib-venetoclax with FCR.
In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg daily, with venetoclax added after 2 months, beginning with a 20-mg dose ramped up to 400 mg in a weekly dose-escalation schedule. The combination could be given for 2-6 years, depending on MRD responses. FCR was delivered in up to six cycles of 28 days each. Two thirds of patients assigned to FCR completed all six cycles.
After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 12 patients (4.6%) randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had disease progression or died compared with 75 patients (28.5%) assigned to FCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival with ibrutinib-venetoclax was 97.2%, compared with 76.8% with FCR, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death with the targeted therapy combination of 0.13 (P <.001).
Among patients with unmutated IGHV, the combination led to improved progression-free survival compared with FCR (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.07); for patients with mutated IGHV, however, the combination did not improve progression-free survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.38).
In all, eight patients (3.5%) assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 23 assigned to FCR (9.5%) died.
The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% in the targeted therapy group vs 93% in the FCR group (HR for progression or death, 0.31).
At 2 years, 52.4% of patients assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had undetectable MRD in bone marrow compared with 49.8% with FCR. At 5 years, the respective percentages for MRD in bone marrow were 65.9% vs 49.8% and 92.7% vs 67.9% for MRD in peripheral blood.
The safety analysis showed higher rates of blood and lymphatic system disorders with FCR, whereas cardiac, metabolic/nutrition disorders, and eye disorders occurred more frequent with ibrutinib-venetoclax.
A total of 24 secondary cancers were diagnosed in 17 patients randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 45 secondary cancers among 34 patients randomly assigned to FCR. One patient assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax developed myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as did eight patients assigned to FCR. One patient in the ibrutinib-venetoclax arm and four patients in the FCR arm had Richter’s transformation.
The incidence rate for other cancers was 2.6 per 100 person-years with ibrutinib-venetoclax compared with 5.4 per 100 person-years with FCR.
The most frequently occurring cancers in each arm were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes, AML lymphoma, and prostate/urologic cancers was higher among patients on FCR.
This research “unequivocally shows the superiority of targeted therapy over traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy,” commented briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
The ibrutinib-venetoclax combination has the potential to reduce the incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to CLL therapy, Dr. Sekeres suggested.
“As someone who specializes in leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, I have the feeling I won’t be seeing these CLL patients in my clinic — years after being treated for CLL — much longer,” he said.
In an interview with this news organization, Lee Greenberger, PhD, said that “I think that duration-adapted therapy is a great story. Using MRD negativity is a perfectly justified way, I think, to go about a new combination that’s going to be really potent for CLL patients and probably give them many years of treatment and then to get off the drug, because ultimately the goal is to get cures.”
This combination, though highly efficacious, is unlikely to be curative; however, because even when MRD is undetectable, “it will come back,” said Dr. Greenberger, chief scientific officer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Dr. Greenberger added that MRD testing of bone marrow, which provides a more detailed picture of MRD status than testing of peripheral blood, is feasible in academic medical centers but may be a barrier to MRD-adapted therapy in community oncology practices.
The FLAIR study is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and AbbVie. Dr. Hillmen disclosed employment and equity participation with Apellis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sekeres disclosed board activities for Geron, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and owner of stock options Kurome. Dr. Greenberger reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Drug Combo Improves PFS
Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”
For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).
At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).
When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.
Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.
In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”
Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.
The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”
However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”
It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.
Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.
Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.
Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”
For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).
At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).
When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.
Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.
In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”
Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.
The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”
However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”
It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.
Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.
Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.
Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”
For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).
At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).
When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.
Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.
In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”
Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.
The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”
However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”
It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.
Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.
Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.
FROM ASH 2023
‘Baby TAM’ effective, tolerable for breast cancer prevention
SAN ANTONIO — The drug can reduce incidence of breast cancer in high-risk individuals, but side effects that mimic menopause have led to low rates of uptake. Lower-dose tamoxifen aims to reduce those side effects, but there remains some uncertainty about the minimum dose required to maintain efficacy.
The TAM-01 study, first published in 2019, demonstrated that a 5-mg dose of tamoxifen led to a reduction in recurrence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, two studies were presented that provided insight into dose efficacy and likelihood of medication adherence in women taking baby TAM.
“We all know that women who are at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from the use of tamoxifen to help lower their risk, although historical uptake to tamoxifen in the prevention setting has been quite low,” said Lauren Cornell, MD, during a presentation. Her team investigated the impact of patient counseling on how well they understood their risk, as well as their likelihood of adherence to the medication.
The study included 41 women, and 31 completed follow-up at 1 year. “We saw that 90% of our patients reported good or complete understanding of their breast cancer risk after the consultation, emphasizing the benefit of that consult, and 73% reported that the availability of baby tamoxifen helped in their decision to consider a preventative medication,” said Dr. Cornell during her presentation. After 1 year of follow-up, 74% said that they had initiated baby tamoxifen, and 78% of those who started taking the drug were still taking it at 1 year.
Participants who continued to take baby TAM at 1 year had a higher estimated breast cancer risk (IBIS 10-year risk, 12.7% vs 7.6%; P = .027) than those who discontinued. “We saw that uptake to baby TAM after informed discussion in patients who qualify is high, especially in those patients with high risk and intraepithelial lesions or DCIS, and adherence and tolerability at 1 year follow up is improved, compared to what we would expect with traditional dosing of tamoxifen. It’s important to note that the NCCN guidelines and the ASCO clinical practice update now include low-dose tamoxifen as an option for select women, and future randomized control trials on de-escalation of tamoxifen and high-risk patients based on their risk model assessment still need to be done. Future study should also focus on markers to identify candidates best suited for low versus standard dose of tamoxifen,” said Dr. Cornell, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville.
At another SABCS session, Per Hall, MD, PhD, discussed findings from the previously published KARISMA-2 study, which examined efficacy of various doses of tamoxifen. A total of 1440 participants, 240 in each arm, received tamoxifen doses of 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg, 2.5 mg, 1 mg, or placebo. During his talk, Dr. Hall pointed out that measuring outcomes would take a very large number of participants to identify small differences in breast cancer rates. Therefore, the researchers examined breast density changes as a proxy. As a noninferiority outcome, the researchers used the proportion of women in each arm who achieved the median decrease in breast density seen at 20 mg of tamoxifen, which is 10.1%.
The women underwent mammograms at baseline and again at 6 months to determine change in breast density. Among all women in the study, the proportion of patients who had a similar breast density reduction as the 20-mg dose were very similar in the 10 mg (50.0%; P = .002), 5 mg (49.3%; P < .001), and 2.5 mg (52.5%; P < .001) groups. The 1 mg group had a proportion of 39.5% (P = .138), while the placebo group had 38.9% (P = .161). However, the results were driven by premenopausal women, where the values were 63.3%, 70.7%, 74.4%, and 69.7% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, respectively, and 32.9% at 1 mg and 29.7% on placebo. In postmenopausal women, the values were 41.9%, 36.7%, 33.3%, and 41.9% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, with values of 44.2% in the 1-mg group and 43.8% in the placebo group.
The median density change was 18.5% in premenopausal women and 4.0% in postmenopausal women.
“We didn’t see anything in the postmenopausal women. The decrease for those on 20 milligrams and those on placebo were exactly the same. Why this is, we still don’t know because we do know that tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting could be used for postmenopausal women. It could be that 6 months is too short of a time [to see a benefit]. We don’t know,” said Dr. Hall, who is a medical epidemiologist and biostatistician at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Severe vasomotor side effects like hot flashes, cold flashes, and night sweats were reduced by about 50% in the lower tamoxifen doses, compared with 20 mg.
Dr. Hall also pointed out that tamoxifen is a prodrug. The CYP2D6 enzyme produces a range of metabolites, with endoxifen having the strongest affinity to the estrogen receptor and being present at the highest plasma concentration. He showed a table of endoxifen plasma levels at various tamoxifen doses in women of various metabolizer status, ranging from poor to ultrafast. Among intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid metabolizers, 5- and 10-mg doses produced plasma endoxifen levels ranging from 2.4 to 6.2 ng/mL, which represents a good therapeutic window. “For intermediate and normal metabolizers, it could be that 5 mg [of tamoxifen] is enough, but I want to underline that we didn’t use breast cancer incidence or recurrence in this study, we used density change, so we should be careful when we use these results,” said Dr. Hall. His group is now conducting the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, which will test endoxifen directly at doses of 1 and 2 mg.
Dr. Cornell has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hall is a member of the scientific advisory board for Atossa Therapeutics.
SAN ANTONIO — The drug can reduce incidence of breast cancer in high-risk individuals, but side effects that mimic menopause have led to low rates of uptake. Lower-dose tamoxifen aims to reduce those side effects, but there remains some uncertainty about the minimum dose required to maintain efficacy.
The TAM-01 study, first published in 2019, demonstrated that a 5-mg dose of tamoxifen led to a reduction in recurrence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, two studies were presented that provided insight into dose efficacy and likelihood of medication adherence in women taking baby TAM.
“We all know that women who are at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from the use of tamoxifen to help lower their risk, although historical uptake to tamoxifen in the prevention setting has been quite low,” said Lauren Cornell, MD, during a presentation. Her team investigated the impact of patient counseling on how well they understood their risk, as well as their likelihood of adherence to the medication.
The study included 41 women, and 31 completed follow-up at 1 year. “We saw that 90% of our patients reported good or complete understanding of their breast cancer risk after the consultation, emphasizing the benefit of that consult, and 73% reported that the availability of baby tamoxifen helped in their decision to consider a preventative medication,” said Dr. Cornell during her presentation. After 1 year of follow-up, 74% said that they had initiated baby tamoxifen, and 78% of those who started taking the drug were still taking it at 1 year.
Participants who continued to take baby TAM at 1 year had a higher estimated breast cancer risk (IBIS 10-year risk, 12.7% vs 7.6%; P = .027) than those who discontinued. “We saw that uptake to baby TAM after informed discussion in patients who qualify is high, especially in those patients with high risk and intraepithelial lesions or DCIS, and adherence and tolerability at 1 year follow up is improved, compared to what we would expect with traditional dosing of tamoxifen. It’s important to note that the NCCN guidelines and the ASCO clinical practice update now include low-dose tamoxifen as an option for select women, and future randomized control trials on de-escalation of tamoxifen and high-risk patients based on their risk model assessment still need to be done. Future study should also focus on markers to identify candidates best suited for low versus standard dose of tamoxifen,” said Dr. Cornell, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville.
At another SABCS session, Per Hall, MD, PhD, discussed findings from the previously published KARISMA-2 study, which examined efficacy of various doses of tamoxifen. A total of 1440 participants, 240 in each arm, received tamoxifen doses of 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg, 2.5 mg, 1 mg, or placebo. During his talk, Dr. Hall pointed out that measuring outcomes would take a very large number of participants to identify small differences in breast cancer rates. Therefore, the researchers examined breast density changes as a proxy. As a noninferiority outcome, the researchers used the proportion of women in each arm who achieved the median decrease in breast density seen at 20 mg of tamoxifen, which is 10.1%.
The women underwent mammograms at baseline and again at 6 months to determine change in breast density. Among all women in the study, the proportion of patients who had a similar breast density reduction as the 20-mg dose were very similar in the 10 mg (50.0%; P = .002), 5 mg (49.3%; P < .001), and 2.5 mg (52.5%; P < .001) groups. The 1 mg group had a proportion of 39.5% (P = .138), while the placebo group had 38.9% (P = .161). However, the results were driven by premenopausal women, where the values were 63.3%, 70.7%, 74.4%, and 69.7% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, respectively, and 32.9% at 1 mg and 29.7% on placebo. In postmenopausal women, the values were 41.9%, 36.7%, 33.3%, and 41.9% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, with values of 44.2% in the 1-mg group and 43.8% in the placebo group.
The median density change was 18.5% in premenopausal women and 4.0% in postmenopausal women.
“We didn’t see anything in the postmenopausal women. The decrease for those on 20 milligrams and those on placebo were exactly the same. Why this is, we still don’t know because we do know that tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting could be used for postmenopausal women. It could be that 6 months is too short of a time [to see a benefit]. We don’t know,” said Dr. Hall, who is a medical epidemiologist and biostatistician at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Severe vasomotor side effects like hot flashes, cold flashes, and night sweats were reduced by about 50% in the lower tamoxifen doses, compared with 20 mg.
Dr. Hall also pointed out that tamoxifen is a prodrug. The CYP2D6 enzyme produces a range of metabolites, with endoxifen having the strongest affinity to the estrogen receptor and being present at the highest plasma concentration. He showed a table of endoxifen plasma levels at various tamoxifen doses in women of various metabolizer status, ranging from poor to ultrafast. Among intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid metabolizers, 5- and 10-mg doses produced plasma endoxifen levels ranging from 2.4 to 6.2 ng/mL, which represents a good therapeutic window. “For intermediate and normal metabolizers, it could be that 5 mg [of tamoxifen] is enough, but I want to underline that we didn’t use breast cancer incidence or recurrence in this study, we used density change, so we should be careful when we use these results,” said Dr. Hall. His group is now conducting the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, which will test endoxifen directly at doses of 1 and 2 mg.
Dr. Cornell has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hall is a member of the scientific advisory board for Atossa Therapeutics.
SAN ANTONIO — The drug can reduce incidence of breast cancer in high-risk individuals, but side effects that mimic menopause have led to low rates of uptake. Lower-dose tamoxifen aims to reduce those side effects, but there remains some uncertainty about the minimum dose required to maintain efficacy.
The TAM-01 study, first published in 2019, demonstrated that a 5-mg dose of tamoxifen led to a reduction in recurrence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, two studies were presented that provided insight into dose efficacy and likelihood of medication adherence in women taking baby TAM.
“We all know that women who are at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from the use of tamoxifen to help lower their risk, although historical uptake to tamoxifen in the prevention setting has been quite low,” said Lauren Cornell, MD, during a presentation. Her team investigated the impact of patient counseling on how well they understood their risk, as well as their likelihood of adherence to the medication.
The study included 41 women, and 31 completed follow-up at 1 year. “We saw that 90% of our patients reported good or complete understanding of their breast cancer risk after the consultation, emphasizing the benefit of that consult, and 73% reported that the availability of baby tamoxifen helped in their decision to consider a preventative medication,” said Dr. Cornell during her presentation. After 1 year of follow-up, 74% said that they had initiated baby tamoxifen, and 78% of those who started taking the drug were still taking it at 1 year.
Participants who continued to take baby TAM at 1 year had a higher estimated breast cancer risk (IBIS 10-year risk, 12.7% vs 7.6%; P = .027) than those who discontinued. “We saw that uptake to baby TAM after informed discussion in patients who qualify is high, especially in those patients with high risk and intraepithelial lesions or DCIS, and adherence and tolerability at 1 year follow up is improved, compared to what we would expect with traditional dosing of tamoxifen. It’s important to note that the NCCN guidelines and the ASCO clinical practice update now include low-dose tamoxifen as an option for select women, and future randomized control trials on de-escalation of tamoxifen and high-risk patients based on their risk model assessment still need to be done. Future study should also focus on markers to identify candidates best suited for low versus standard dose of tamoxifen,” said Dr. Cornell, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville.
At another SABCS session, Per Hall, MD, PhD, discussed findings from the previously published KARISMA-2 study, which examined efficacy of various doses of tamoxifen. A total of 1440 participants, 240 in each arm, received tamoxifen doses of 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg, 2.5 mg, 1 mg, or placebo. During his talk, Dr. Hall pointed out that measuring outcomes would take a very large number of participants to identify small differences in breast cancer rates. Therefore, the researchers examined breast density changes as a proxy. As a noninferiority outcome, the researchers used the proportion of women in each arm who achieved the median decrease in breast density seen at 20 mg of tamoxifen, which is 10.1%.
The women underwent mammograms at baseline and again at 6 months to determine change in breast density. Among all women in the study, the proportion of patients who had a similar breast density reduction as the 20-mg dose were very similar in the 10 mg (50.0%; P = .002), 5 mg (49.3%; P < .001), and 2.5 mg (52.5%; P < .001) groups. The 1 mg group had a proportion of 39.5% (P = .138), while the placebo group had 38.9% (P = .161). However, the results were driven by premenopausal women, where the values were 63.3%, 70.7%, 74.4%, and 69.7% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, respectively, and 32.9% at 1 mg and 29.7% on placebo. In postmenopausal women, the values were 41.9%, 36.7%, 33.3%, and 41.9% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, with values of 44.2% in the 1-mg group and 43.8% in the placebo group.
The median density change was 18.5% in premenopausal women and 4.0% in postmenopausal women.
“We didn’t see anything in the postmenopausal women. The decrease for those on 20 milligrams and those on placebo were exactly the same. Why this is, we still don’t know because we do know that tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting could be used for postmenopausal women. It could be that 6 months is too short of a time [to see a benefit]. We don’t know,” said Dr. Hall, who is a medical epidemiologist and biostatistician at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Severe vasomotor side effects like hot flashes, cold flashes, and night sweats were reduced by about 50% in the lower tamoxifen doses, compared with 20 mg.
Dr. Hall also pointed out that tamoxifen is a prodrug. The CYP2D6 enzyme produces a range of metabolites, with endoxifen having the strongest affinity to the estrogen receptor and being present at the highest plasma concentration. He showed a table of endoxifen plasma levels at various tamoxifen doses in women of various metabolizer status, ranging from poor to ultrafast. Among intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid metabolizers, 5- and 10-mg doses produced plasma endoxifen levels ranging from 2.4 to 6.2 ng/mL, which represents a good therapeutic window. “For intermediate and normal metabolizers, it could be that 5 mg [of tamoxifen] is enough, but I want to underline that we didn’t use breast cancer incidence or recurrence in this study, we used density change, so we should be careful when we use these results,” said Dr. Hall. His group is now conducting the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, which will test endoxifen directly at doses of 1 and 2 mg.
Dr. Cornell has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hall is a member of the scientific advisory board for Atossa Therapeutics.
FROM SABCS 2023
Anti-Rheumatic Drugs Linked to Reduced Thyroid Disease Incidence
TOPLINE:
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a large Swedish population cohort show a reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroid diseases, such as hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism, after being diagnosed with RA, with the effect being more pronounced among those treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), particularly TNF-inhibitors.
Although DMARDs are commonly used in the treatment of RA, the drugs are rarely used to treat autoimmune thyroid diseases. The new results support theories raised in previous smaller studies that DMARDs could have a protective effect against thyroid disease.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 13,731 patients with new-onset RA who were listed in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register between 2006 and 2018.
- The patients were matched for sex, age, and residential area with up to five reference individuals in the general population of 63,201 comparators.
- Overall, patients with RA were 64.7% female, with a mean age of 59. They were followed up with their matched comparators until the development of autoimmune thyroid disease, death, emigration, or the end of the study period, December 2019.
- The relative risks of autoimmune thyroid disease following a diagnosis of RA and with treatment with DMARDs were compared with those risks in the general population.
- Participants with a non-autoimmune cause for thyroxine prescription were excluded, as were those with an autoimmune thyroid disease at the time of RA diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Following their RA diagnosis, 321 (2.3%) of patients developed an autoimmune thyroid disease, compared with 1838 (2.9%) in the general population comparators, representing an incidence of 3.7 vs 4.6 per 1000 person-years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81).
- The lower incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease was more pronounced with longer RA duration. For instance, at 10-14 years after an RA diagnosis, the incidence was 2.9 vs. 4.5 autoimmune thyroid disease events per 1000 person-years, respectively (HR, 0.64).
- The decreased risk of incident autoimmune thyroid disease among RA patients compared with the general population was strongest among patients treated with biologic DMARDs (bDMARD), with an HR of 0.54.
- The reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease with bDMARD use was most pronounced among users of TNF-inhibitors (HR, 0.67).
- The lower incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease following a diagnosis of RA contrasts with previous studies showing an increased risk for thyroid disease associated with RA.
- However, the decreased risk of thyroid disease following bDMARD treatment supports the theory that immunomodulatory treatment could also have an effect of blunting the inflammatory processes that can lead to overt clinical autoimmune thyroid disease.
IN PRACTICE:
“To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated whether the risk of new-onset autoimmune thyroid disease is affected by RA treatment in early RA,” the authors report.
“Our results demonstrate that compared to the general population, patients with RA treated with bDMARDs, TNF-inhibitors in particular, are at decreased risk of developing autoimmune thyroid disease, a finding that calls for replication and may open for drug-repurposing studies,” they note.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by first author Kristin Waldenlind, PhD, of the Department of Medicine, Solna, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues. It was published online November 27 in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked details on participants’ thyroid autoantibody and hormone levels.
The presence of autoimmune thyroid disease was determined based on prescriptions for thyroxine, hence the authors cannot exclude the possibility of a lower threshold for thyroxine prescription among patients treated with DMARDs.
Information was not available on potential risk factors for RA and autoimmune thyroid disease that might have introduced confounding, such as smoking or obesity.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, Vinnova, and Region Stockholm/Karolinska Institutet (ALF). The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the published study.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a large Swedish population cohort show a reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroid diseases, such as hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism, after being diagnosed with RA, with the effect being more pronounced among those treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), particularly TNF-inhibitors.
Although DMARDs are commonly used in the treatment of RA, the drugs are rarely used to treat autoimmune thyroid diseases. The new results support theories raised in previous smaller studies that DMARDs could have a protective effect against thyroid disease.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 13,731 patients with new-onset RA who were listed in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register between 2006 and 2018.
- The patients were matched for sex, age, and residential area with up to five reference individuals in the general population of 63,201 comparators.
- Overall, patients with RA were 64.7% female, with a mean age of 59. They were followed up with their matched comparators until the development of autoimmune thyroid disease, death, emigration, or the end of the study period, December 2019.
- The relative risks of autoimmune thyroid disease following a diagnosis of RA and with treatment with DMARDs were compared with those risks in the general population.
- Participants with a non-autoimmune cause for thyroxine prescription were excluded, as were those with an autoimmune thyroid disease at the time of RA diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Following their RA diagnosis, 321 (2.3%) of patients developed an autoimmune thyroid disease, compared with 1838 (2.9%) in the general population comparators, representing an incidence of 3.7 vs 4.6 per 1000 person-years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81).
- The lower incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease was more pronounced with longer RA duration. For instance, at 10-14 years after an RA diagnosis, the incidence was 2.9 vs. 4.5 autoimmune thyroid disease events per 1000 person-years, respectively (HR, 0.64).
- The decreased risk of incident autoimmune thyroid disease among RA patients compared with the general population was strongest among patients treated with biologic DMARDs (bDMARD), with an HR of 0.54.
- The reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease with bDMARD use was most pronounced among users of TNF-inhibitors (HR, 0.67).
- The lower incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease following a diagnosis of RA contrasts with previous studies showing an increased risk for thyroid disease associated with RA.
- However, the decreased risk of thyroid disease following bDMARD treatment supports the theory that immunomodulatory treatment could also have an effect of blunting the inflammatory processes that can lead to overt clinical autoimmune thyroid disease.
IN PRACTICE:
“To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated whether the risk of new-onset autoimmune thyroid disease is affected by RA treatment in early RA,” the authors report.
“Our results demonstrate that compared to the general population, patients with RA treated with bDMARDs, TNF-inhibitors in particular, are at decreased risk of developing autoimmune thyroid disease, a finding that calls for replication and may open for drug-repurposing studies,” they note.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by first author Kristin Waldenlind, PhD, of the Department of Medicine, Solna, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues. It was published online November 27 in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked details on participants’ thyroid autoantibody and hormone levels.
The presence of autoimmune thyroid disease was determined based on prescriptions for thyroxine, hence the authors cannot exclude the possibility of a lower threshold for thyroxine prescription among patients treated with DMARDs.
Information was not available on potential risk factors for RA and autoimmune thyroid disease that might have introduced confounding, such as smoking or obesity.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, Vinnova, and Region Stockholm/Karolinska Institutet (ALF). The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the published study.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a large Swedish population cohort show a reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroid diseases, such as hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism, after being diagnosed with RA, with the effect being more pronounced among those treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), particularly TNF-inhibitors.
Although DMARDs are commonly used in the treatment of RA, the drugs are rarely used to treat autoimmune thyroid diseases. The new results support theories raised in previous smaller studies that DMARDs could have a protective effect against thyroid disease.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 13,731 patients with new-onset RA who were listed in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register between 2006 and 2018.
- The patients were matched for sex, age, and residential area with up to five reference individuals in the general population of 63,201 comparators.
- Overall, patients with RA were 64.7% female, with a mean age of 59. They were followed up with their matched comparators until the development of autoimmune thyroid disease, death, emigration, or the end of the study period, December 2019.
- The relative risks of autoimmune thyroid disease following a diagnosis of RA and with treatment with DMARDs were compared with those risks in the general population.
- Participants with a non-autoimmune cause for thyroxine prescription were excluded, as were those with an autoimmune thyroid disease at the time of RA diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Following their RA diagnosis, 321 (2.3%) of patients developed an autoimmune thyroid disease, compared with 1838 (2.9%) in the general population comparators, representing an incidence of 3.7 vs 4.6 per 1000 person-years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81).
- The lower incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease was more pronounced with longer RA duration. For instance, at 10-14 years after an RA diagnosis, the incidence was 2.9 vs. 4.5 autoimmune thyroid disease events per 1000 person-years, respectively (HR, 0.64).
- The decreased risk of incident autoimmune thyroid disease among RA patients compared with the general population was strongest among patients treated with biologic DMARDs (bDMARD), with an HR of 0.54.
- The reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease with bDMARD use was most pronounced among users of TNF-inhibitors (HR, 0.67).
- The lower incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease following a diagnosis of RA contrasts with previous studies showing an increased risk for thyroid disease associated with RA.
- However, the decreased risk of thyroid disease following bDMARD treatment supports the theory that immunomodulatory treatment could also have an effect of blunting the inflammatory processes that can lead to overt clinical autoimmune thyroid disease.
IN PRACTICE:
“To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated whether the risk of new-onset autoimmune thyroid disease is affected by RA treatment in early RA,” the authors report.
“Our results demonstrate that compared to the general population, patients with RA treated with bDMARDs, TNF-inhibitors in particular, are at decreased risk of developing autoimmune thyroid disease, a finding that calls for replication and may open for drug-repurposing studies,” they note.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by first author Kristin Waldenlind, PhD, of the Department of Medicine, Solna, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues. It was published online November 27 in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked details on participants’ thyroid autoantibody and hormone levels.
The presence of autoimmune thyroid disease was determined based on prescriptions for thyroxine, hence the authors cannot exclude the possibility of a lower threshold for thyroxine prescription among patients treated with DMARDs.
Information was not available on potential risk factors for RA and autoimmune thyroid disease that might have introduced confounding, such as smoking or obesity.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, Vinnova, and Region Stockholm/Karolinska Institutet (ALF). The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the published study.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.