Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology, according to a retrospective, population-based study of 1,315 patients.

After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9), reported Tim D.G. Belderbos, MD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Rates of local recurrence also were similar between these groups (4.1% and 3.7%, P = .3), he and his associates reported in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.041).

Among high-risk patients, however, the rates of overall recurrence were 14% with endoscopic resection only and 7% with endoscopic resection plus additional surgery (P = .06), and the rates of local recurrence were 12% and 1%, respectively (P = .004). “Based on our study, we recommend performing additional surgery after initial endoscopic resection in cases of high-risk T1 CRC, determined by high-risk histology and/or positive resection margins,” the researchers concluded. Invasive CRCs confined to the colonic submucosa (T1 CRC) present a treatment dilemma – they are usually cured by complete endoscopic resection, but up to 13% involve lymph node metastases and need additional surgery, the investigators noted. To identify predictors of recurrence and metastasis, they studied all patients diagnosed with T1 CRC in the Southeast Netherlands from 1995 through 2011. A total of 370 patients (28%) underwent endoscopic resection only, 220 (17%) underwent endoscopic resection with additional surgery, and 725 (55%) had an initial surgical resection.

Surgery after endoscopic resection was more likely when patients had positive or doubtful resection margins (P less than .001), and this link remained significant after high-risk histology, tumor location, time period, age, sex, and comorbidities were controlled for. Endoscopic resection plus surgery did not reduce the risk of recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only (P = .3), after the investigators accounted for age, sex, year of procedure, tumor location, and margin characteristics. Initial surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall and local recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only, but the differences also lost significance in the multivariable analysis (P = .2).

Only the presence of positive resection margins significantly predicted recurrence among patients undergoing endoscopic resection (hazard ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-20.9). Positive or doubtful resection margins also predicted recurrence after initial surgery, with hazard ratios of 13.2 and 3.4, respectively. High-risk histology – that is, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, or lymphangioinvasion – was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P less than .002), but not with recurrence after resection margins were accounted for. This might result from missing histology data or the fact that patients with high-risk histology tended to undergo surgical rather than endoscopic resection, the researchers said.

They noted several other study limitations, including a lack of details about lesions and procedures. Also, endoscopic submucosal resection was not practiced in the Netherlands during the study period, they said.

The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.

Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology, according to a retrospective, population-based study of 1,315 patients.

After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9), reported Tim D.G. Belderbos, MD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Rates of local recurrence also were similar between these groups (4.1% and 3.7%, P = .3), he and his associates reported in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.041).

Among high-risk patients, however, the rates of overall recurrence were 14% with endoscopic resection only and 7% with endoscopic resection plus additional surgery (P = .06), and the rates of local recurrence were 12% and 1%, respectively (P = .004). “Based on our study, we recommend performing additional surgery after initial endoscopic resection in cases of high-risk T1 CRC, determined by high-risk histology and/or positive resection margins,” the researchers concluded. Invasive CRCs confined to the colonic submucosa (T1 CRC) present a treatment dilemma – they are usually cured by complete endoscopic resection, but up to 13% involve lymph node metastases and need additional surgery, the investigators noted. To identify predictors of recurrence and metastasis, they studied all patients diagnosed with T1 CRC in the Southeast Netherlands from 1995 through 2011. A total of 370 patients (28%) underwent endoscopic resection only, 220 (17%) underwent endoscopic resection with additional surgery, and 725 (55%) had an initial surgical resection.

Surgery after endoscopic resection was more likely when patients had positive or doubtful resection margins (P less than .001), and this link remained significant after high-risk histology, tumor location, time period, age, sex, and comorbidities were controlled for. Endoscopic resection plus surgery did not reduce the risk of recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only (P = .3), after the investigators accounted for age, sex, year of procedure, tumor location, and margin characteristics. Initial surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall and local recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only, but the differences also lost significance in the multivariable analysis (P = .2).

Only the presence of positive resection margins significantly predicted recurrence among patients undergoing endoscopic resection (hazard ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-20.9). Positive or doubtful resection margins also predicted recurrence after initial surgery, with hazard ratios of 13.2 and 3.4, respectively. High-risk histology – that is, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, or lymphangioinvasion – was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P less than .002), but not with recurrence after resection margins were accounted for. This might result from missing histology data or the fact that patients with high-risk histology tended to undergo surgical rather than endoscopic resection, the researchers said.

They noted several other study limitations, including a lack of details about lesions and procedures. Also, endoscopic submucosal resection was not practiced in the Netherlands during the study period, they said.

The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.

Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology, according to a retrospective, population-based study of 1,315 patients.

After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9), reported Tim D.G. Belderbos, MD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Rates of local recurrence also were similar between these groups (4.1% and 3.7%, P = .3), he and his associates reported in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.041).

Among high-risk patients, however, the rates of overall recurrence were 14% with endoscopic resection only and 7% with endoscopic resection plus additional surgery (P = .06), and the rates of local recurrence were 12% and 1%, respectively (P = .004). “Based on our study, we recommend performing additional surgery after initial endoscopic resection in cases of high-risk T1 CRC, determined by high-risk histology and/or positive resection margins,” the researchers concluded. Invasive CRCs confined to the colonic submucosa (T1 CRC) present a treatment dilemma – they are usually cured by complete endoscopic resection, but up to 13% involve lymph node metastases and need additional surgery, the investigators noted. To identify predictors of recurrence and metastasis, they studied all patients diagnosed with T1 CRC in the Southeast Netherlands from 1995 through 2011. A total of 370 patients (28%) underwent endoscopic resection only, 220 (17%) underwent endoscopic resection with additional surgery, and 725 (55%) had an initial surgical resection.

Surgery after endoscopic resection was more likely when patients had positive or doubtful resection margins (P less than .001), and this link remained significant after high-risk histology, tumor location, time period, age, sex, and comorbidities were controlled for. Endoscopic resection plus surgery did not reduce the risk of recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only (P = .3), after the investigators accounted for age, sex, year of procedure, tumor location, and margin characteristics. Initial surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall and local recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only, but the differences also lost significance in the multivariable analysis (P = .2).

Only the presence of positive resection margins significantly predicted recurrence among patients undergoing endoscopic resection (hazard ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-20.9). Positive or doubtful resection margins also predicted recurrence after initial surgery, with hazard ratios of 13.2 and 3.4, respectively. High-risk histology – that is, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, or lymphangioinvasion – was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P less than .002), but not with recurrence after resection margins were accounted for. This might result from missing histology data or the fact that patients with high-risk histology tended to undergo surgical rather than endoscopic resection, the researchers said.

They noted several other study limitations, including a lack of details about lesions and procedures. Also, endoscopic submucosal resection was not practiced in the Netherlands during the study period, they said.

The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.

Absorbable, biosynthetic surgical mesh used to repair ventral hernia defects may be a good alternative to biologic and permanent synthetic mesh products both in terms of long-term durability and cost, according to a longitudinal cohort study.

The results of the COBRA (Complex Open Bioabsorbable Reconstruction of the Abdominal Wall) study published in the January issue of Annals of Surgery represent the longest follow-up of patients in whom this product was used. Lead author of the study, Michael J. Rosen, MD, professor of surgery at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and his colleagues wrote: “Absorbable synthetic mesh has the prospective advantages of a reduced cost, minimal constraints in manufacturing alternative sizes (lengths, widths, and thicknesses), informed consent in certain religious or cultural groups, and ability to be iterative in generational improvements in mesh constructs based on outcome studies, compared with allogeneic or xenogenic mesh.”

©Dmitrii Kotin/Thinkstock.com

The study was funded by W.L. Gore. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Absorbable, biosynthetic surgical mesh used to repair ventral hernia defects may be a good alternative to biologic and permanent synthetic mesh products both in terms of long-term durability and cost, according to a longitudinal cohort study.

The results of the COBRA (Complex Open Bioabsorbable Reconstruction of the Abdominal Wall) study published in the January issue of Annals of Surgery represent the longest follow-up of patients in whom this product was used. Lead author of the study, Michael J. Rosen, MD, professor of surgery at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and his colleagues wrote: “Absorbable synthetic mesh has the prospective advantages of a reduced cost, minimal constraints in manufacturing alternative sizes (lengths, widths, and thicknesses), informed consent in certain religious or cultural groups, and ability to be iterative in generational improvements in mesh constructs based on outcome studies, compared with allogeneic or xenogenic mesh.”

©Dmitrii Kotin/Thinkstock.com

The study was funded by W.L. Gore. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Absorbable, biosynthetic surgical mesh used to repair ventral hernia defects may be a good alternative to biologic and permanent synthetic mesh products both in terms of long-term durability and cost, according to a longitudinal cohort study.

The results of the COBRA (Complex Open Bioabsorbable Reconstruction of the Abdominal Wall) study published in the January issue of Annals of Surgery represent the longest follow-up of patients in whom this product was used. Lead author of the study, Michael J. Rosen, MD, professor of surgery at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and his colleagues wrote: “Absorbable synthetic mesh has the prospective advantages of a reduced cost, minimal constraints in manufacturing alternative sizes (lengths, widths, and thicknesses), informed consent in certain religious or cultural groups, and ability to be iterative in generational improvements in mesh constructs based on outcome studies, compared with allogeneic or xenogenic mesh.”

©Dmitrii Kotin/Thinkstock.com

The study was funded by W.L. Gore. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique drugs.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference drug is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such drugs have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference drug. Prices for some drugs have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive drugs. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount on the drug to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer drugs (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those drugs to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive drugs, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

*This article was updated 1/31/2017.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique drugs.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference drug is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such drugs have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference drug. Prices for some drugs have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive drugs. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount on the drug to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer drugs (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those drugs to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive drugs, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

*This article was updated 1/31/2017.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique drugs.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference drug is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such drugs have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference drug. Prices for some drugs have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive drugs. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount on the drug to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer drugs (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those drugs to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive drugs, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

*This article was updated 1/31/2017.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding everolimus to paclitaxel failed to significantly improve outcomes in pretreated patients with gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma in a German randomized phase III study.

Median overall survival in the double-blind multicenter study (RADPAC) was 6.12 months among 150 patients randomized to receive treatment with paclitaxel plus everolimus as 2nd, 3rd, or 4th line therapy, and 5.03 months among those who received paclitaxel and placebo (hazard ratio, 0.93), Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, reported at the symposium sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was 2.20 vs. 2.07 months in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), said Dr. Al-Batran of Krankenhaus Nordwest, University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany.

Study subjects had a mean age of 62 years and had progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen. All had at least one, and a maximum of three prior lines of therapy (median of two in both groups).

Of note, accrual was slow and was stopped early, largely because of the very-high rate of taxane use for first-line treatment, but also because combination ramucirumab/paclitaxel was approved during the course of the study, Dr. Al-Batran said.

The treatment and placebo groups were well balanced. Treatment included 80 mg/m² of paclitaxel on days 1, 8 and 15, plus placebo or 10 mg of everolimus daily on days 1-28, repeated every 28 days. Dose adjustment was more common in the treatment group (26% vs. 13%) but cumulative doses were similar in the groups.

Also, more patients in the everolimus group discontinued treatment for toxicity (11% vs. 5%). However, the only toxicity that was significantly increased was grade 3-5 oral mucositis in the treatment group (13% vs. 1% in the placebo group).

Gastric cancer is aggressive and difficult to treat, with median survival of only 9-11 months, Dr. Al-Batran said, adding that at the time the RADPAC study was initiated, no treatments had been approved for patients who failed first-line therapy, although agents like paclitaxel and irinotecan were in use.

He and his colleagues sought to evaluate everolimus, because 50%-60% of gastric cancers are driven by dysregulation in the P13k/Akt/mTOR pathway – a key regulator of cell proliferation, growth, survival, metabolism, and angiogenesis, and because everolimus – an oral mTOR inhibitor – showed efficacy in preclinical models of gastric cancer.

In the phase III GRANITE-1 trial, it was associated with trends toward improved progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with best supportive care, he noted.

Subgroup analyses in the current trial suggested that patients with prior taxane use derived greater benefit from everolimus. Overall survival in those patients, who comprised about half of the study population, was 6 months vs. 4 months with placebo; the difference did not reach statistical significance, but showed a strong trend in that direction (P = .072). Progression-free survival was, however, significantly greater with everolimus than with placebo (2.66 vs. 1.81 months; HR, 0.50) in those with prior taxane use.

“Interestingly, the very few patients having ECOG performance status of 2 really performed very poorly,” Dr. Al-Batran said, explaining that those patients had better outcomes with paclitaxel monotherapy.

“So, in conclusion, everolimus combined with paclitaxel improved outcomes as compared with paclitaxel alone in the intention to treat population. However, activity was seen in the taxane pretreated subgroup. Biomarker studies could attempt to identify a subgroup with more benefit, as we see some activity, but this activity is not enough,” he concluded.

Dr. Al-Batran reported receiving honoraria, serving as a consultant or advisor, receiving research funding from, and/or being on the speakers’ bureau for Celgene, Hospira, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, and Nordic Bioscience.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding everolimus to paclitaxel failed to significantly improve outcomes in pretreated patients with gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma in a German randomized phase III study.

Median overall survival in the double-blind multicenter study (RADPAC) was 6.12 months among 150 patients randomized to receive treatment with paclitaxel plus everolimus as 2nd, 3rd, or 4th line therapy, and 5.03 months among those who received paclitaxel and placebo (hazard ratio, 0.93), Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, reported at the symposium sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was 2.20 vs. 2.07 months in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), said Dr. Al-Batran of Krankenhaus Nordwest, University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany.

Study subjects had a mean age of 62 years and had progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen. All had at least one, and a maximum of three prior lines of therapy (median of two in both groups).

Of note, accrual was slow and was stopped early, largely because of the very-high rate of taxane use for first-line treatment, but also because combination ramucirumab/paclitaxel was approved during the course of the study, Dr. Al-Batran said.

The treatment and placebo groups were well balanced. Treatment included 80 mg/m² of paclitaxel on days 1, 8 and 15, plus placebo or 10 mg of everolimus daily on days 1-28, repeated every 28 days. Dose adjustment was more common in the treatment group (26% vs. 13%) but cumulative doses were similar in the groups.

Also, more patients in the everolimus group discontinued treatment for toxicity (11% vs. 5%). However, the only toxicity that was significantly increased was grade 3-5 oral mucositis in the treatment group (13% vs. 1% in the placebo group).

Gastric cancer is aggressive and difficult to treat, with median survival of only 9-11 months, Dr. Al-Batran said, adding that at the time the RADPAC study was initiated, no treatments had been approved for patients who failed first-line therapy, although agents like paclitaxel and irinotecan were in use.

He and his colleagues sought to evaluate everolimus, because 50%-60% of gastric cancers are driven by dysregulation in the P13k/Akt/mTOR pathway – a key regulator of cell proliferation, growth, survival, metabolism, and angiogenesis, and because everolimus – an oral mTOR inhibitor – showed efficacy in preclinical models of gastric cancer.

In the phase III GRANITE-1 trial, it was associated with trends toward improved progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with best supportive care, he noted.

Subgroup analyses in the current trial suggested that patients with prior taxane use derived greater benefit from everolimus. Overall survival in those patients, who comprised about half of the study population, was 6 months vs. 4 months with placebo; the difference did not reach statistical significance, but showed a strong trend in that direction (P = .072). Progression-free survival was, however, significantly greater with everolimus than with placebo (2.66 vs. 1.81 months; HR, 0.50) in those with prior taxane use.

“Interestingly, the very few patients having ECOG performance status of 2 really performed very poorly,” Dr. Al-Batran said, explaining that those patients had better outcomes with paclitaxel monotherapy.

“So, in conclusion, everolimus combined with paclitaxel improved outcomes as compared with paclitaxel alone in the intention to treat population. However, activity was seen in the taxane pretreated subgroup. Biomarker studies could attempt to identify a subgroup with more benefit, as we see some activity, but this activity is not enough,” he concluded.

Dr. Al-Batran reported receiving honoraria, serving as a consultant or advisor, receiving research funding from, and/or being on the speakers’ bureau for Celgene, Hospira, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, and Nordic Bioscience.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding everolimus to paclitaxel failed to significantly improve outcomes in pretreated patients with gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma in a German randomized phase III study.

Median overall survival in the double-blind multicenter study (RADPAC) was 6.12 months among 150 patients randomized to receive treatment with paclitaxel plus everolimus as 2nd, 3rd, or 4th line therapy, and 5.03 months among those who received paclitaxel and placebo (hazard ratio, 0.93), Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, reported at the symposium sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was 2.20 vs. 2.07 months in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), said Dr. Al-Batran of Krankenhaus Nordwest, University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany.

Study subjects had a mean age of 62 years and had progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen. All had at least one, and a maximum of three prior lines of therapy (median of two in both groups).

Of note, accrual was slow and was stopped early, largely because of the very-high rate of taxane use for first-line treatment, but also because combination ramucirumab/paclitaxel was approved during the course of the study, Dr. Al-Batran said.

The treatment and placebo groups were well balanced. Treatment included 80 mg/m² of paclitaxel on days 1, 8 and 15, plus placebo or 10 mg of everolimus daily on days 1-28, repeated every 28 days. Dose adjustment was more common in the treatment group (26% vs. 13%) but cumulative doses were similar in the groups.

Also, more patients in the everolimus group discontinued treatment for toxicity (11% vs. 5%). However, the only toxicity that was significantly increased was grade 3-5 oral mucositis in the treatment group (13% vs. 1% in the placebo group).

Gastric cancer is aggressive and difficult to treat, with median survival of only 9-11 months, Dr. Al-Batran said, adding that at the time the RADPAC study was initiated, no treatments had been approved for patients who failed first-line therapy, although agents like paclitaxel and irinotecan were in use.

He and his colleagues sought to evaluate everolimus, because 50%-60% of gastric cancers are driven by dysregulation in the P13k/Akt/mTOR pathway – a key regulator of cell proliferation, growth, survival, metabolism, and angiogenesis, and because everolimus – an oral mTOR inhibitor – showed efficacy in preclinical models of gastric cancer.

In the phase III GRANITE-1 trial, it was associated with trends toward improved progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with best supportive care, he noted.

Subgroup analyses in the current trial suggested that patients with prior taxane use derived greater benefit from everolimus. Overall survival in those patients, who comprised about half of the study population, was 6 months vs. 4 months with placebo; the difference did not reach statistical significance, but showed a strong trend in that direction (P = .072). Progression-free survival was, however, significantly greater with everolimus than with placebo (2.66 vs. 1.81 months; HR, 0.50) in those with prior taxane use.

“Interestingly, the very few patients having ECOG performance status of 2 really performed very poorly,” Dr. Al-Batran said, explaining that those patients had better outcomes with paclitaxel monotherapy.

“So, in conclusion, everolimus combined with paclitaxel improved outcomes as compared with paclitaxel alone in the intention to treat population. However, activity was seen in the taxane pretreated subgroup. Biomarker studies could attempt to identify a subgroup with more benefit, as we see some activity, but this activity is not enough,” he concluded.

Dr. Al-Batran reported receiving honoraria, serving as a consultant or advisor, receiving research funding from, and/or being on the speakers’ bureau for Celgene, Hospira, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, and Nordic Bioscience.

[email protected]

The January issue of ACS Surgery News is available on the website. This month’s issue features a special report on burnout. A new paradigm of burnout is emerging: The roots of the problem may be institutional. Addressing physician burnout must begin with recognition of the challenge and a commitment to change from the top levels of management, according to a study by Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, and John Noseworthy, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.

The January issue of ACS Surgery News is available on the website. This month’s issue features a special report on burnout. A new paradigm of burnout is emerging: The roots of the problem may be institutional. Addressing physician burnout must begin with recognition of the challenge and a commitment to change from the top levels of management, according to a study by Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, and John Noseworthy, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.

The January issue of ACS Surgery News is available on the website. This month’s issue features a special report on burnout. A new paradigm of burnout is emerging: The roots of the problem may be institutional. Addressing physician burnout must begin with recognition of the challenge and a commitment to change from the top levels of management, according to a study by Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, and John Noseworthy, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Eden M. Miller, DO

Executive Director and Co-founder, Diabetes Nation

High Lakes Health Care

St. Charles Hospital

Bend, Oregon

Competing Interest and Financial Disclosures: Dr. Miller discloses that she is on the advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Click here to view the PDF. 

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Eden M. Miller, DO

Executive Director and Co-founder, Diabetes Nation

High Lakes Health Care

St. Charles Hospital

Bend, Oregon

Competing Interest and Financial Disclosures: Dr. Miller discloses that she is on the advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Click here to view the PDF. 

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Eden M. Miller, DO

Executive Director and Co-founder, Diabetes Nation

High Lakes Health Care

St. Charles Hospital

Bend, Oregon

Competing Interest and Financial Disclosures: Dr. Miller discloses that she is on the advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Click here to view the PDF. 

NEW ORLEANS – Semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes that’s dosed weekly, was superior to daily sitagliptin in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight in people who are also on metformin and/or thiazolidinediones (TZDs), based on results from a phase III trial. But while the serious adverse event profile was similar for both treatments, far more patients on semaglutide discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

The SUSTAIN study includes more than 8,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The results are the basis for a new drug application filed in December with the Food and Drug Administration by the investigational drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, which made the announcement in a press release.

NEW ORLEANS – Semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes that’s dosed weekly, was superior to daily sitagliptin in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight in people who are also on metformin and/or thiazolidinediones (TZDs), based on results from a phase III trial. But while the serious adverse event profile was similar for both treatments, far more patients on semaglutide discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

The SUSTAIN study includes more than 8,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The results are the basis for a new drug application filed in December with the Food and Drug Administration by the investigational drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, which made the announcement in a press release.

NEW ORLEANS – Semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes that’s dosed weekly, was superior to daily sitagliptin in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight in people who are also on metformin and/or thiazolidinediones (TZDs), based on results from a phase III trial. But while the serious adverse event profile was similar for both treatments, far more patients on semaglutide discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

The SUSTAIN study includes more than 8,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The results are the basis for a new drug application filed in December with the Food and Drug Administration by the investigational drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, which made the announcement in a press release.

ORLANDO – Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) should be screened for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), because this information may be useful in guiding ablation strategies, according to results of a prospective study.

The study, which associated OSA in AF with a high relative rate of non–pulmonary vein (PV) triggers, has contributed to the “growing body of evidence implicating sleep apnea in atrial remodeling and promotion of the AF substrate,” Elad Anter, MD, associate director of the clinical electrophysiology laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reported at the annual International AF Symposium.

Despite the close association between OSA and AF, it has been unclear whether OSA is a causative factor. Dr. Anter suggested that mechanistic association is strengthening, however.

It has been hypothesized that OSA generates AF substrate through negative intrathoracic pressure changes and autonomic nervous system activation. But Dr. Anter reported that there is more recent and compelling evidence that the repetitive occlusions produced by OSA result in remodeling of the atria, producing scar tissue that slows conduction and produces susceptibility to reentry AF.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) should be screened for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), because this information may be useful in guiding ablation strategies, according to results of a prospective study.

The study, which associated OSA in AF with a high relative rate of non–pulmonary vein (PV) triggers, has contributed to the “growing body of evidence implicating sleep apnea in atrial remodeling and promotion of the AF substrate,” Elad Anter, MD, associate director of the clinical electrophysiology laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reported at the annual International AF Symposium.

Despite the close association between OSA and AF, it has been unclear whether OSA is a causative factor. Dr. Anter suggested that mechanistic association is strengthening, however.

It has been hypothesized that OSA generates AF substrate through negative intrathoracic pressure changes and autonomic nervous system activation. But Dr. Anter reported that there is more recent and compelling evidence that the repetitive occlusions produced by OSA result in remodeling of the atria, producing scar tissue that slows conduction and produces susceptibility to reentry AF.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) should be screened for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), because this information may be useful in guiding ablation strategies, according to results of a prospective study.

The study, which associated OSA in AF with a high relative rate of non–pulmonary vein (PV) triggers, has contributed to the “growing body of evidence implicating sleep apnea in atrial remodeling and promotion of the AF substrate,” Elad Anter, MD, associate director of the clinical electrophysiology laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reported at the annual International AF Symposium.

Despite the close association between OSA and AF, it has been unclear whether OSA is a causative factor. Dr. Anter suggested that mechanistic association is strengthening, however.

It has been hypothesized that OSA generates AF substrate through negative intrathoracic pressure changes and autonomic nervous system activation. But Dr. Anter reported that there is more recent and compelling evidence that the repetitive occlusions produced by OSA result in remodeling of the atria, producing scar tissue that slows conduction and produces susceptibility to reentry AF.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock

[email protected]

To the Editor:

Pemphigus foliaceus is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder that typically presents with crusted scaly erosions in a seborrheic distribution. We describe a case of pemphigus foliaceus localized to the right cheek of 10 years’ duration that spread to other areas. With a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE yielding only 14 cases of localized pemphigus foliaceus (Table), it represents an extremely rare entity that often is a diagnostic challenge and may be a harbinger for disseminated disease months to years after the inciting lesion appears.

A 51-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic cutaneous eruption that had remained localized to the right cheek for 10 years before it increased in size and new lesions developed on the left cheek, chest, and upper back. No inciting factors, such as contactants, insect bites, infections, medications, or recent travel were identified. On physical examination a well-demarcated, hypertrophic, verrucouslike plaque with central pink atrophy and exfoliative scale involved the right malar and submalar regions but spared the mucocutaneous junctions of the face (Figure 1). Subtle dark brown papules, some with overlying scale, speckled the left cheek, right jawline, chest, and upper back. The oral cavity was clear.

Leading differentials included hypertrophic discoid lupus erythematosus and pemphigus vegetans. Other considerations included sarcoidosis, granuloma faciale, lupus vulgaris, disseminated coccidioidomycosis or blastomycosis, and squamous cell carcinoma.

An initial biopsy revealed a lymphocytic lichenoid dermatitis with epidermal hyperplasia and scattered eosinophils for which the following differentials were provided: insect bite, hypertrophic lichen planus, prurigo nodularis superimposed on rosacea, and allergic contact dermatitis. Under these histologic diagnoses, tacrolimus ointment 0.03%, topical mid-potency corticosteroid, and a combination of oral doxycycline and metronidazole gel 1% were prescribed but failed to ameliorate her condition.

Because the clinical differentials were vast and noncorrelative with the original pathology, additional biopsies were performed: one from the edge of the large malar plaque, which was transected for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and tissue cultures; one perilesional to the large malar plaque for direct immunofluorescence (DIF); and one from the papule on the right jawline for H&E. Tissue cultures were negative for fungal and mycobacterial organisms. Both specimens submitted for H&E showed the prominent epidermal hyperplasia and lymphocytic dermal infiltrate noted on the original H&E but also demonstrated intragranular acantholysis (Figure 2). The DIF revealed intercellular IgG and C3 deposition throughout the epidermis (Figure 3). Indirect immunofluorescence was negative, but enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detected circulating antidesmoglein-1 but not antidesmoglein-3 autoantibodies. Other serologies including antinuclear antibody, anti–double-stranded DNA, antihistone, anti–Sjögren syndrome A, and anti–Sjögren syndrome B antibodies were negative.

The diagnosis of localized pemphigus foliaceus was made and management with oral prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil resulted in improvement within weeks.

Localized pemphigus foliaceus is extremely rare with only 14 cases reported in the literature (Table).^1-10 Its diagnosis is challenging, as the clinical presentation simulates various entities and the histological features and serological markers are difficult to capture.

Localized pemphigus foliaceus typically presents as an isolated, erythematous, scaly, crusted plaque involving the nose, cheek, or scalp and may mimic several conditions including contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, cutaneous sarcoidosis, discoid lupus erythematosus, lupus vulgaris, impetigo contagiosa, solar keratosis, and nonmelanoma skin cancer.^1-10

The predilection for sun-exposed areas suggests UV radiation may induce binding of antidesmoglein-1 autoantibodies with subsequent cytokine-mediated inflammation and acantholysis at these sites.^11-13 Similarly, the immunomodulatory agent imiquimod has been reported to induce pemphigus foliaceus at its application sites.⁶

When pemphigus foliaceus is clinically discernible, the histology and DIF are in accordance with the clinical diagnosis 53.8% of the time.¹³ In cases of localized pemphigus foliaceus in which the diagnosis is more elusive, many biopsies often are needed to capture the characteristic intragranular acantholysis; this feature often is so subtle that unless the diagnosis is suspected, it is underappreciated or undetectable. In chronic lesions, it may be masked by secondary changes such as acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and parakeratosis.¹⁴

In pemphigus foliaceus, detection of circulating antidesmoglein-1 autoantibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is slightly more sensitive and specific compared to indirect immunofluorescence, but both correlate with disease activity.^15,16 The low or absent autoantibody titers in localized pemphigus foliaceus may reflect its limited involvement, but dissemination of the disease with subsequent elevation of autoantibody titers may occur months to years after initial presentation,^1,2,9 as was the case with our patient.

The majority of localized pemphigus foliaceus cases require systemic prednisone, sometimes in conjunction with nonsteroidal immunosuppressants or topical high-potency corticosteroids.^1-3,5,6,8-10 One case was efficaciously managed with tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.⁷

Localized pemphigus foliaceus is a rare and challenging entity that must be a diagnostic consideration for any chronic focal plaque on the face or scalp, as it may herald disseminated disease.

To the Editor:

Pemphigus foliaceus is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder that typically presents with crusted scaly erosions in a seborrheic distribution. We describe a case of pemphigus foliaceus localized to the right cheek of 10 years’ duration that spread to other areas. With a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE yielding only 14 cases of localized pemphigus foliaceus (Table), it represents an extremely rare entity that often is a diagnostic challenge and may be a harbinger for disseminated disease months to years after the inciting lesion appears.

A 51-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic cutaneous eruption that had remained localized to the right cheek for 10 years before it increased in size and new lesions developed on the left cheek, chest, and upper back. No inciting factors, such as contactants, insect bites, infections, medications, or recent travel were identified. On physical examination a well-demarcated, hypertrophic, verrucouslike plaque with central pink atrophy and exfoliative scale involved the right malar and submalar regions but spared the mucocutaneous junctions of the face (Figure 1). Subtle dark brown papules, some with overlying scale, speckled the left cheek, right jawline, chest, and upper back. The oral cavity was clear.

Leading differentials included hypertrophic discoid lupus erythematosus and pemphigus vegetans. Other considerations included sarcoidosis, granuloma faciale, lupus vulgaris, disseminated coccidioidomycosis or blastomycosis, and squamous cell carcinoma.

An initial biopsy revealed a lymphocytic lichenoid dermatitis with epidermal hyperplasia and scattered eosinophils for which the following differentials were provided: insect bite, hypertrophic lichen planus, prurigo nodularis superimposed on rosacea, and allergic contact dermatitis. Under these histologic diagnoses, tacrolimus ointment 0.03%, topical mid-potency corticosteroid, and a combination of oral doxycycline and metronidazole gel 1% were prescribed but failed to ameliorate her condition.

Because the clinical differentials were vast and noncorrelative with the original pathology, additional biopsies were performed: one from the edge of the large malar plaque, which was transected for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and tissue cultures; one perilesional to the large malar plaque for direct immunofluorescence (DIF); and one from the papule on the right jawline for H&E. Tissue cultures were negative for fungal and mycobacterial organisms. Both specimens submitted for H&E showed the prominent epidermal hyperplasia and lymphocytic dermal infiltrate noted on the original H&E but also demonstrated intragranular acantholysis (Figure 2). The DIF revealed intercellular IgG and C3 deposition throughout the epidermis (Figure 3). Indirect immunofluorescence was negative, but enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detected circulating antidesmoglein-1 but not antidesmoglein-3 autoantibodies. Other serologies including antinuclear antibody, anti–double-stranded DNA, antihistone, anti–Sjögren syndrome A, and anti–Sjögren syndrome B antibodies were negative.

The diagnosis of localized pemphigus foliaceus was made and management with oral prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil resulted in improvement within weeks.

Localized pemphigus foliaceus is extremely rare with only 14 cases reported in the literature (Table).^1-10 Its diagnosis is challenging, as the clinical presentation simulates various entities and the histological features and serological markers are difficult to capture.

Localized pemphigus foliaceus typically presents as an isolated, erythematous, scaly, crusted plaque involving the nose, cheek, or scalp and may mimic several conditions including contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, cutaneous sarcoidosis, discoid lupus erythematosus, lupus vulgaris, impetigo contagiosa, solar keratosis, and nonmelanoma skin cancer.^1-10

The predilection for sun-exposed areas suggests UV radiation may induce binding of antidesmoglein-1 autoantibodies with subsequent cytokine-mediated inflammation and acantholysis at these sites.^11-13 Similarly, the immunomodulatory agent imiquimod has been reported to induce pemphigus foliaceus at its application sites.⁶

When pemphigus foliaceus is clinically discernible, the histology and DIF are in accordance with the clinical diagnosis 53.8% of the time.¹³ In cases of localized pemphigus foliaceus in which the diagnosis is more elusive, many biopsies often are needed to capture the characteristic intragranular acantholysis; this feature often is so subtle that unless the diagnosis is suspected, it is underappreciated or undetectable. In chronic lesions, it may be masked by secondary changes such as acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and parakeratosis.¹⁴

In pemphigus foliaceus, detection of circulating antidesmoglein-1 autoantibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is slightly more sensitive and specific compared to indirect immunofluorescence, but both correlate with disease activity.^15,16 The low or absent autoantibody titers in localized pemphigus foliaceus may reflect its limited involvement, but dissemination of the disease with subsequent elevation of autoantibody titers may occur months to years after initial presentation,^1,2,9 as was the case with our patient.

The majority of localized pemphigus foliaceus cases require systemic prednisone, sometimes in conjunction with nonsteroidal immunosuppressants or topical high-potency corticosteroids.^1-3,5,6,8-10 One case was efficaciously managed with tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.⁷

Localized pemphigus foliaceus is a rare and challenging entity that must be a diagnostic consideration for any chronic focal plaque on the face or scalp, as it may herald disseminated disease.

To the Editor:

Pemphigus foliaceus is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder that typically presents with crusted scaly erosions in a seborrheic distribution. We describe a case of pemphigus foliaceus localized to the right cheek of 10 years’ duration that spread to other areas. With a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE yielding only 14 cases of localized pemphigus foliaceus (Table), it represents an extremely rare entity that often is a diagnostic challenge and may be a harbinger for disseminated disease months to years after the inciting lesion appears.

A 51-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic cutaneous eruption that had remained localized to the right cheek for 10 years before it increased in size and new lesions developed on the left cheek, chest, and upper back. No inciting factors, such as contactants, insect bites, infections, medications, or recent travel were identified. On physical examination a well-demarcated, hypertrophic, verrucouslike plaque with central pink atrophy and exfoliative scale involved the right malar and submalar regions but spared the mucocutaneous junctions of the face (Figure 1). Subtle dark brown papules, some with overlying scale, speckled the left cheek, right jawline, chest, and upper back. The oral cavity was clear.

Leading differentials included hypertrophic discoid lupus erythematosus and pemphigus vegetans. Other considerations included sarcoidosis, granuloma faciale, lupus vulgaris, disseminated coccidioidomycosis or blastomycosis, and squamous cell carcinoma.

An initial biopsy revealed a lymphocytic lichenoid dermatitis with epidermal hyperplasia and scattered eosinophils for which the following differentials were provided: insect bite, hypertrophic lichen planus, prurigo nodularis superimposed on rosacea, and allergic contact dermatitis. Under these histologic diagnoses, tacrolimus ointment 0.03%, topical mid-potency corticosteroid, and a combination of oral doxycycline and metronidazole gel 1% were prescribed but failed to ameliorate her condition.

Because the clinical differentials were vast and noncorrelative with the original pathology, additional biopsies were performed: one from the edge of the large malar plaque, which was transected for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and tissue cultures; one perilesional to the large malar plaque for direct immunofluorescence (DIF); and one from the papule on the right jawline for H&E. Tissue cultures were negative for fungal and mycobacterial organisms. Both specimens submitted for H&E showed the prominent epidermal hyperplasia and lymphocytic dermal infiltrate noted on the original H&E but also demonstrated intragranular acantholysis (Figure 2). The DIF revealed intercellular IgG and C3 deposition throughout the epidermis (Figure 3). Indirect immunofluorescence was negative, but enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detected circulating antidesmoglein-1 but not antidesmoglein-3 autoantibodies. Other serologies including antinuclear antibody, anti–double-stranded DNA, antihistone, anti–Sjögren syndrome A, and anti–Sjögren syndrome B antibodies were negative.

The diagnosis of localized pemphigus foliaceus was made and management with oral prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil resulted in improvement within weeks.

Localized pemphigus foliaceus is extremely rare with only 14 cases reported in the literature (Table).^1-10 Its diagnosis is challenging, as the clinical presentation simulates various entities and the histological features and serological markers are difficult to capture.

Localized pemphigus foliaceus typically presents as an isolated, erythematous, scaly, crusted plaque involving the nose, cheek, or scalp and may mimic several conditions including contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, cutaneous sarcoidosis, discoid lupus erythematosus, lupus vulgaris, impetigo contagiosa, solar keratosis, and nonmelanoma skin cancer.^1-10

The predilection for sun-exposed areas suggests UV radiation may induce binding of antidesmoglein-1 autoantibodies with subsequent cytokine-mediated inflammation and acantholysis at these sites.^11-13 Similarly, the immunomodulatory agent imiquimod has been reported to induce pemphigus foliaceus at its application sites.⁶

When pemphigus foliaceus is clinically discernible, the histology and DIF are in accordance with the clinical diagnosis 53.8% of the time.¹³ In cases of localized pemphigus foliaceus in which the diagnosis is more elusive, many biopsies often are needed to capture the characteristic intragranular acantholysis; this feature often is so subtle that unless the diagnosis is suspected, it is underappreciated or undetectable. In chronic lesions, it may be masked by secondary changes such as acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and parakeratosis.¹⁴

In pemphigus foliaceus, detection of circulating antidesmoglein-1 autoantibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is slightly more sensitive and specific compared to indirect immunofluorescence, but both correlate with disease activity.^15,16 The low or absent autoantibody titers in localized pemphigus foliaceus may reflect its limited involvement, but dissemination of the disease with subsequent elevation of autoantibody titers may occur months to years after initial presentation,^1,2,9 as was the case with our patient.

The majority of localized pemphigus foliaceus cases require systemic prednisone, sometimes in conjunction with nonsteroidal immunosuppressants or topical high-potency corticosteroids.^1-3,5,6,8-10 One case was efficaciously managed with tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.⁷

Localized pemphigus foliaceus is a rare and challenging entity that must be a diagnostic consideration for any chronic focal plaque on the face or scalp, as it may herald disseminated disease.

A great volume of HIV and AIDS research enters the medical literature every month. It’s difficult to monitor everything, so here’s a quick look at some notable news items and journal articles published over the past few weeks.

Immediate antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of several severe bacterial infections in HIV-positive people with high CD4 cell count, according to a study in The Lancet HIV. The authors said this is partly explained by ART-induced increases in CD4 cell count, but not by increases in neutrophil count.

Postmenopausal status was not associated with a greater risk of unprotected sex in a population of high-risk HIV-positive Kenyan women, a recent study showed.

copyright alexskopje/Thinkstock

[email protected]

On Twitter @richpizzi

A great volume of HIV and AIDS research enters the medical literature every month. It’s difficult to monitor everything, so here’s a quick look at some notable news items and journal articles published over the past few weeks.

Immediate antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of several severe bacterial infections in HIV-positive people with high CD4 cell count, according to a study in The Lancet HIV. The authors said this is partly explained by ART-induced increases in CD4 cell count, but not by increases in neutrophil count.

Postmenopausal status was not associated with a greater risk of unprotected sex in a population of high-risk HIV-positive Kenyan women, a recent study showed.

copyright alexskopje/Thinkstock

[email protected]

On Twitter @richpizzi

A great volume of HIV and AIDS research enters the medical literature every month. It’s difficult to monitor everything, so here’s a quick look at some notable news items and journal articles published over the past few weeks.

Immediate antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of several severe bacterial infections in HIV-positive people with high CD4 cell count, according to a study in The Lancet HIV. The authors said this is partly explained by ART-induced increases in CD4 cell count, but not by increases in neutrophil count.

Postmenopausal status was not associated with a greater risk of unprotected sex in a population of high-risk HIV-positive Kenyan women, a recent study showed.

copyright alexskopje/Thinkstock

[email protected]

On Twitter @richpizzi