Immunology

VANCOUVER – New evidence from the phase 3 EoE KIDS trial supports the safety and efficacy of dupilumab (Dupixent) treatment for children aged 1-11 years with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

High exposure to dupilumab was associated with significantly improved histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic improvements, compared with placebo at week 16. Sustained response or improvements continued to week 52 with continued treatment in the high-exposure dupilumab group. Children in the high-exposure dupilumab group also gained more weight during the study than those initially assigned to placebo.

“Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic, aggressive, type 2 inflammatory disease that has a substantial impact on quality of life,” said Mirna Chehade, MD, MPH, of the Mount Sinai Center for Eosinophilic Disorders, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. And the incidence and prevalence of the disease is increasing.

Dupilumab is already indicated for treating EoE in adolescents aged 12 or older as well as adults, but “there are no approved treatments for EoE in children under 12,” said Dr. Chehade, who presented the results of the late-breaking abstract at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 annual scientific meeting.

She and her colleagues randomly assigned 102 children aged 1-11 years with active EoE to three groups for the first 16 weeks of the study: 37 to high-exposure dupilumab; 31 to low-exposure dupilumab; and 34 others to placebo, followed by either high- or low-dose dupilumab. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable between groups.

During an active 36-week extension period, the 37 participants who were initially assigned to receive high-exposure dupilumab continued the same treatment up to week 52. A total of 29 participants initially assigned to receive low-exposure dupilumab continues their regimen as well. Those initially assigned to receive placebo switched to a preassigned active treatment group; 18 children started to take high-exposure dupilumab, and 14 began to take low-exposure dupilumab.

The children in the study had a high burden of disease, as reflected by the duration of EoE as well as histologic, endoscopic, and clinical scores. The mean age was 7.2 years in the placebo group and 6.8 years in the dupilumab group. They were mostly White boys, Dr. Chehade said.
 

Key outcomes

At week 16, the high-exposure dupilumab group met the primary study endpoint with a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≤ 6 on high-power field assessment. This was significantly different from the placebo group (least squares mean difference, 64.5; 95% confidence interval, 48.19-80.85; P < .0001).

At week 52, 63% of children who remained on high-exposure dupilumab and 53% of those who switched from placebo to high-exposure dupilumab achieved a peak eosinophil count ≤ 6.

The study included multiple secondary outcomes. For example, at week 16, the following measures improved from baseline with high-exposure dupilumab, compared with placebo:

• EoE-Histologic Scoring System grade and stage scores (–0.88 and –0.84 vs. +0.02 and +0.05; both P < .0001).
• EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (–3.5 vs. +0.3; P < .0001).
• Change in body weight for age percentile (+3.09 vs. +0.29).
• Numeric improvement in caregiver-reported proportion of days experiencing one or more EoE sign (–0.28 vs. –0.17).

At week 52, these outcomes were sustained or improved with continued high-exposure dupilumab. The researchers also saw improvements among the placebo recipients who switched to high-exposure dupilumab.

The reason the children were randomly assigned to high-exposure or low-exposure groups instead of high-dose and low-dose cohorts is because the children grew during the study, Dr. Chehade explained. “As you can see, there was a nice change in weight, and at specific time periods the doses were adjusted to match.”
 

‘Good safety profile’

Dupilumab was well tolerated. “The safety profile is very similar to what has been so far described and published for dupilumab in adults,” said Dr. Chehade. At week 16, adverse events that were more frequent with dupilumab vs. placebo included COVID-19, rash, headache, and injection-site erythema, for example. Similar safety results were seen up to week 52.

“I think it’s promising as we wait for the actual study to be published,” said Asmeen Bhatt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and assistant professor of medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The drug was recently approved for adult EOE use, just last year, and it has been shown to be effective.”

“There are a lot of adult drugs that are now being tested in the pediatric population, and this is one of them,” Dr. Bhatt added. “It has a very good safety profile. I’m not a pediatric gastroenterologist but I expect that it will have a lot of utility.”

The study was funded by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dr. Chehade is a consultant for Sanofi and Regeneron and receives research funding from Regeneron. Dr. Bhatt had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

VANCOUVER – New evidence from the phase 3 EoE KIDS trial supports the safety and efficacy of dupilumab (Dupixent) treatment for children aged 1-11 years with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

High exposure to dupilumab was associated with significantly improved histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic improvements, compared with placebo at week 16. Sustained response or improvements continued to week 52 with continued treatment in the high-exposure dupilumab group. Children in the high-exposure dupilumab group also gained more weight during the study than those initially assigned to placebo.

“Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic, aggressive, type 2 inflammatory disease that has a substantial impact on quality of life,” said Mirna Chehade, MD, MPH, of the Mount Sinai Center for Eosinophilic Disorders, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. And the incidence and prevalence of the disease is increasing.

Dupilumab is already indicated for treating EoE in adolescents aged 12 or older as well as adults, but “there are no approved treatments for EoE in children under 12,” said Dr. Chehade, who presented the results of the late-breaking abstract at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 annual scientific meeting.

She and her colleagues randomly assigned 102 children aged 1-11 years with active EoE to three groups for the first 16 weeks of the study: 37 to high-exposure dupilumab; 31 to low-exposure dupilumab; and 34 others to placebo, followed by either high- or low-dose dupilumab. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable between groups.

During an active 36-week extension period, the 37 participants who were initially assigned to receive high-exposure dupilumab continued the same treatment up to week 52. A total of 29 participants initially assigned to receive low-exposure dupilumab continues their regimen as well. Those initially assigned to receive placebo switched to a preassigned active treatment group; 18 children started to take high-exposure dupilumab, and 14 began to take low-exposure dupilumab.

The children in the study had a high burden of disease, as reflected by the duration of EoE as well as histologic, endoscopic, and clinical scores. The mean age was 7.2 years in the placebo group and 6.8 years in the dupilumab group. They were mostly White boys, Dr. Chehade said.
 

Key outcomes

At week 16, the high-exposure dupilumab group met the primary study endpoint with a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≤ 6 on high-power field assessment. This was significantly different from the placebo group (least squares mean difference, 64.5; 95% confidence interval, 48.19-80.85; P < .0001).

At week 52, 63% of children who remained on high-exposure dupilumab and 53% of those who switched from placebo to high-exposure dupilumab achieved a peak eosinophil count ≤ 6.

The study included multiple secondary outcomes. For example, at week 16, the following measures improved from baseline with high-exposure dupilumab, compared with placebo:

• EoE-Histologic Scoring System grade and stage scores (–0.88 and –0.84 vs. +0.02 and +0.05; both P < .0001).
• EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (–3.5 vs. +0.3; P < .0001).
• Change in body weight for age percentile (+3.09 vs. +0.29).
• Numeric improvement in caregiver-reported proportion of days experiencing one or more EoE sign (–0.28 vs. –0.17).

At week 52, these outcomes were sustained or improved with continued high-exposure dupilumab. The researchers also saw improvements among the placebo recipients who switched to high-exposure dupilumab.

The reason the children were randomly assigned to high-exposure or low-exposure groups instead of high-dose and low-dose cohorts is because the children grew during the study, Dr. Chehade explained. “As you can see, there was a nice change in weight, and at specific time periods the doses were adjusted to match.”
 

‘Good safety profile’

Dupilumab was well tolerated. “The safety profile is very similar to what has been so far described and published for dupilumab in adults,” said Dr. Chehade. At week 16, adverse events that were more frequent with dupilumab vs. placebo included COVID-19, rash, headache, and injection-site erythema, for example. Similar safety results were seen up to week 52.

“I think it’s promising as we wait for the actual study to be published,” said Asmeen Bhatt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and assistant professor of medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The drug was recently approved for adult EOE use, just last year, and it has been shown to be effective.”

“There are a lot of adult drugs that are now being tested in the pediatric population, and this is one of them,” Dr. Bhatt added. “It has a very good safety profile. I’m not a pediatric gastroenterologist but I expect that it will have a lot of utility.”

The study was funded by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dr. Chehade is a consultant for Sanofi and Regeneron and receives research funding from Regeneron. Dr. Bhatt had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

VANCOUVER – New evidence from the phase 3 EoE KIDS trial supports the safety and efficacy of dupilumab (Dupixent) treatment for children aged 1-11 years with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

High exposure to dupilumab was associated with significantly improved histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic improvements, compared with placebo at week 16. Sustained response or improvements continued to week 52 with continued treatment in the high-exposure dupilumab group. Children in the high-exposure dupilumab group also gained more weight during the study than those initially assigned to placebo.

“Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic, aggressive, type 2 inflammatory disease that has a substantial impact on quality of life,” said Mirna Chehade, MD, MPH, of the Mount Sinai Center for Eosinophilic Disorders, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. And the incidence and prevalence of the disease is increasing.

Dupilumab is already indicated for treating EoE in adolescents aged 12 or older as well as adults, but “there are no approved treatments for EoE in children under 12,” said Dr. Chehade, who presented the results of the late-breaking abstract at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 annual scientific meeting.

She and her colleagues randomly assigned 102 children aged 1-11 years with active EoE to three groups for the first 16 weeks of the study: 37 to high-exposure dupilumab; 31 to low-exposure dupilumab; and 34 others to placebo, followed by either high- or low-dose dupilumab. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable between groups.

During an active 36-week extension period, the 37 participants who were initially assigned to receive high-exposure dupilumab continued the same treatment up to week 52. A total of 29 participants initially assigned to receive low-exposure dupilumab continues their regimen as well. Those initially assigned to receive placebo switched to a preassigned active treatment group; 18 children started to take high-exposure dupilumab, and 14 began to take low-exposure dupilumab.

The children in the study had a high burden of disease, as reflected by the duration of EoE as well as histologic, endoscopic, and clinical scores. The mean age was 7.2 years in the placebo group and 6.8 years in the dupilumab group. They were mostly White boys, Dr. Chehade said.
 

Key outcomes

At week 16, the high-exposure dupilumab group met the primary study endpoint with a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≤ 6 on high-power field assessment. This was significantly different from the placebo group (least squares mean difference, 64.5; 95% confidence interval, 48.19-80.85; P < .0001).

At week 52, 63% of children who remained on high-exposure dupilumab and 53% of those who switched from placebo to high-exposure dupilumab achieved a peak eosinophil count ≤ 6.

The study included multiple secondary outcomes. For example, at week 16, the following measures improved from baseline with high-exposure dupilumab, compared with placebo:

• EoE-Histologic Scoring System grade and stage scores (–0.88 and –0.84 vs. +0.02 and +0.05; both P < .0001).
• EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (–3.5 vs. +0.3; P < .0001).
• Change in body weight for age percentile (+3.09 vs. +0.29).
• Numeric improvement in caregiver-reported proportion of days experiencing one or more EoE sign (–0.28 vs. –0.17).

At week 52, these outcomes were sustained or improved with continued high-exposure dupilumab. The researchers also saw improvements among the placebo recipients who switched to high-exposure dupilumab.

The reason the children were randomly assigned to high-exposure or low-exposure groups instead of high-dose and low-dose cohorts is because the children grew during the study, Dr. Chehade explained. “As you can see, there was a nice change in weight, and at specific time periods the doses were adjusted to match.”
 

‘Good safety profile’

Dupilumab was well tolerated. “The safety profile is very similar to what has been so far described and published for dupilumab in adults,” said Dr. Chehade. At week 16, adverse events that were more frequent with dupilumab vs. placebo included COVID-19, rash, headache, and injection-site erythema, for example. Similar safety results were seen up to week 52.

“I think it’s promising as we wait for the actual study to be published,” said Asmeen Bhatt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and assistant professor of medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The drug was recently approved for adult EOE use, just last year, and it has been shown to be effective.”

“There are a lot of adult drugs that are now being tested in the pediatric population, and this is one of them,” Dr. Bhatt added. “It has a very good safety profile. I’m not a pediatric gastroenterologist but I expect that it will have a lot of utility.”

The study was funded by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dr. Chehade is a consultant for Sanofi and Regeneron and receives research funding from Regeneron. Dr. Bhatt had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD) experience bullying significantly more often than their peers without AD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Adolescents with AD have reported appearance-based bullying.
• To evaluate the association between AD and the prevalence and frequency of bullying, researchers analyzed cross-sectional data from adult caregivers of U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years who participated in the 2021 National Health Interview Survey.
• Logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression were used to compare the prevalence of experiencing one or more bullying encounters during the previous 12 months and the frequency of bullying between adolescents with and those without AD.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3,207 adolescents were included in the analysis. The mean age of the participants was 14.5 years, and 11.9% currently had AD. The prevalence of experiencing bullying was significantly higher among adolescents with AD, compared with those without AD (33.2% vs. 19%; P < .001), as was the prevalence of cyberbullying (9.1% vs. 5.8%; P = .04).
• Following adjustment for demographics and atopic comorbidities, adolescents with AD were at increased odds of bullying, compared with their peers without AD (adjusted odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.73).
• Following adjustment for demographics, adolescents with AD were also at increased odds of cyberbullying, compared with their peers without AD (AOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.04-2.62), but no association was observed following adjustment for atopic comorbidities (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.96).
• Following ordinal logistic regression that was adjusted for demographics and atopic comorbidities, adolescents with AD were at greater odds of being bullied at a higher frequency, compared with their peers without AD (AOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.44-2.68).

IN PRACTICE:

“Larger, future studies using clinical AD diagnoses and adolescent self-report can advance understanding of bullying and AD,” the researchers wrote. “Clinicians, families, and schools should address and monitor bullying among adolescents.”

SOURCE:

Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, led the research. The study was published online  in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the study’s cross-sectional design. In addition, the investigators could not directly attribute bullying to skin-specific findings, and it was a caregiver report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One of the authors, Joy Wan, MD, received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Janssen and Sun Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD) experience bullying significantly more often than their peers without AD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Adolescents with AD have reported appearance-based bullying.
• To evaluate the association between AD and the prevalence and frequency of bullying, researchers analyzed cross-sectional data from adult caregivers of U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years who participated in the 2021 National Health Interview Survey.
• Logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression were used to compare the prevalence of experiencing one or more bullying encounters during the previous 12 months and the frequency of bullying between adolescents with and those without AD.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3,207 adolescents were included in the analysis. The mean age of the participants was 14.5 years, and 11.9% currently had AD. The prevalence of experiencing bullying was significantly higher among adolescents with AD, compared with those without AD (33.2% vs. 19%; P < .001), as was the prevalence of cyberbullying (9.1% vs. 5.8%; P = .04).
• Following adjustment for demographics and atopic comorbidities, adolescents with AD were at increased odds of bullying, compared with their peers without AD (adjusted odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.73).
• Following adjustment for demographics, adolescents with AD were also at increased odds of cyberbullying, compared with their peers without AD (AOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.04-2.62), but no association was observed following adjustment for atopic comorbidities (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.96).
• Following ordinal logistic regression that was adjusted for demographics and atopic comorbidities, adolescents with AD were at greater odds of being bullied at a higher frequency, compared with their peers without AD (AOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.44-2.68).

IN PRACTICE:

“Larger, future studies using clinical AD diagnoses and adolescent self-report can advance understanding of bullying and AD,” the researchers wrote. “Clinicians, families, and schools should address and monitor bullying among adolescents.”

SOURCE:

Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, led the research. The study was published online  in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the study’s cross-sectional design. In addition, the investigators could not directly attribute bullying to skin-specific findings, and it was a caregiver report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One of the authors, Joy Wan, MD, received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Janssen and Sun Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD) experience bullying significantly more often than their peers without AD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Adolescents with AD have reported appearance-based bullying.
• To evaluate the association between AD and the prevalence and frequency of bullying, researchers analyzed cross-sectional data from adult caregivers of U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years who participated in the 2021 National Health Interview Survey.
• Logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression were used to compare the prevalence of experiencing one or more bullying encounters during the previous 12 months and the frequency of bullying between adolescents with and those without AD.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3,207 adolescents were included in the analysis. The mean age of the participants was 14.5 years, and 11.9% currently had AD. The prevalence of experiencing bullying was significantly higher among adolescents with AD, compared with those without AD (33.2% vs. 19%; P < .001), as was the prevalence of cyberbullying (9.1% vs. 5.8%; P = .04).
• Following adjustment for demographics and atopic comorbidities, adolescents with AD were at increased odds of bullying, compared with their peers without AD (adjusted odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.73).
• Following adjustment for demographics, adolescents with AD were also at increased odds of cyberbullying, compared with their peers without AD (AOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.04-2.62), but no association was observed following adjustment for atopic comorbidities (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.96).
• Following ordinal logistic regression that was adjusted for demographics and atopic comorbidities, adolescents with AD were at greater odds of being bullied at a higher frequency, compared with their peers without AD (AOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.44-2.68).

IN PRACTICE:

“Larger, future studies using clinical AD diagnoses and adolescent self-report can advance understanding of bullying and AD,” the researchers wrote. “Clinicians, families, and schools should address and monitor bullying among adolescents.”

SOURCE:

Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, led the research. The study was published online  in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the study’s cross-sectional design. In addition, the investigators could not directly attribute bullying to skin-specific findings, and it was a caregiver report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One of the authors, Joy Wan, MD, received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Janssen and Sun Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

Hospitalized patients with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were a younger average age than those hospitalized with asthma alone, according to a new analysis of data from HCA Healthcare.

Not much work has been done on the overlap between the two conditions, both of which are believed to be driven by the action of both eosinophils and helper T cells, according to Linda Pham, DO, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“I have a colleague who is interested in GI and he’s really interested in EOE. We thought it would be nice to look at those populations of patients to see if there’s a correlation between them aside from just the atopic disease,” said Dr. Pham, who is an internal medicine resident at Riverside (Calif.) Community Hospital.

The findings underscore the need for assessing individual patient risk. “Having another concomitant disease like EoE, or maybe like atopic dermatitis, might cause you to have more severe [asthma] exacerbations causing you to go into the hospital more. I think if patients have more of these diseases, doctors can be more cognizant that they need to really be on top of treatment and make sure that [their patients] are aware of themselves so that if their symptoms exacerbate, they can go to the hospital and seek care,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was a retrospective analysis of 3,678,812 patients with asthma and 5,823 patients with both EoE and asthma. The data was drawn from 185 HCA hospitals, with records between 2016 and 2021.

The incidence of both asthma and asthma with EoE remained stable between 2016 and 2021. Dr. Pham pointed out that there are good methods to diagnose both conditions, which suggests that existing treatments are effective enough to be limiting the need for emergency treatment, according to Dr. Pham.

Among patients hospitalized with asthma alone, 72.55% were female, while 27.45% were male (P < .001). The numbers were much more evenly split among those with asthma and EoE, at 51.78% and 48.22%, respectively. The differing gender statistics aren’t easy to explain. “It’s not quite clear whether it’s because they just have more severe symptoms, or if it is other factors causing women to seek care more than their male counterparts. It could be personal biases, or it could be the asthma itself that is more severe in women,” said Dr. Pham.

When they broke down the analysis by sex, the researchers found that male EoE patients without asthma were a mean value of 5.517 years older than male EoE patients with asthma, and the mean difference was 5.480 years in female patients (P < .001 for both).

Although the direct cause of earlier hospitalization among patients with concomitant EoE and asthma is unclear, Dr. Pham speculated that the combination of atopic diseases may be leading to a stronger inflammatory response.

It remains to be seen if a similar relationship occurs with other atopic diseases, and future research could examine other factors. “I think it’d be good to look at not just age and gender, but BMI and occupation, things like that,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was of particular interest to Michelle Robertson, MD, who was in the audience. She is the director for clinical services at the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence at the New Jersey War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center. “We see a significant number of [veterans] who have been diagnosed with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, and our thinking is that that is likely related to some of the military exposures: In particular, [what the] deployed veterans encountered in the Gulf War, [such as] the smoke from burn pits, sand and dust storms, and smoke from oil well fires. Our thinking is that the particulate matter, the PM 2.5, the very, very tiny particles, may be either sensitizing the lung area and/or esophagus and predisposing them to having those symptoms when they return home,” said Dr. Robertson, in an interview.

Particles in this size range may be able to bypass the protected areas of the nose and the lungs to reach the alveoli, where they could potentially interfere with the transfer of air between the lungs and the rest of the body, which could in turn lead to a variety of inflammatory conditions, according to Dr. Robertson.

She noted that particle exposure varies with a soldier’s wartime occupation, with higher exposures among mechanics and burn pit managers, for example. However, the highest levels of exposure do not predict later illness, which is a natural prompt for future research. “The second part of this whole pathophysiology is susceptibility. Is there something about those people that do get sick that makes them more susceptible than folks that don’t, even though they both have the same jobs?”

Dr. Pham and Dr. Robertson have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Hospitalized patients with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were a younger average age than those hospitalized with asthma alone, according to a new analysis of data from HCA Healthcare.

Not much work has been done on the overlap between the two conditions, both of which are believed to be driven by the action of both eosinophils and helper T cells, according to Linda Pham, DO, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“I have a colleague who is interested in GI and he’s really interested in EOE. We thought it would be nice to look at those populations of patients to see if there’s a correlation between them aside from just the atopic disease,” said Dr. Pham, who is an internal medicine resident at Riverside (Calif.) Community Hospital.

The findings underscore the need for assessing individual patient risk. “Having another concomitant disease like EoE, or maybe like atopic dermatitis, might cause you to have more severe [asthma] exacerbations causing you to go into the hospital more. I think if patients have more of these diseases, doctors can be more cognizant that they need to really be on top of treatment and make sure that [their patients] are aware of themselves so that if their symptoms exacerbate, they can go to the hospital and seek care,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was a retrospective analysis of 3,678,812 patients with asthma and 5,823 patients with both EoE and asthma. The data was drawn from 185 HCA hospitals, with records between 2016 and 2021.

The incidence of both asthma and asthma with EoE remained stable between 2016 and 2021. Dr. Pham pointed out that there are good methods to diagnose both conditions, which suggests that existing treatments are effective enough to be limiting the need for emergency treatment, according to Dr. Pham.

Among patients hospitalized with asthma alone, 72.55% were female, while 27.45% were male (P < .001). The numbers were much more evenly split among those with asthma and EoE, at 51.78% and 48.22%, respectively. The differing gender statistics aren’t easy to explain. “It’s not quite clear whether it’s because they just have more severe symptoms, or if it is other factors causing women to seek care more than their male counterparts. It could be personal biases, or it could be the asthma itself that is more severe in women,” said Dr. Pham.

When they broke down the analysis by sex, the researchers found that male EoE patients without asthma were a mean value of 5.517 years older than male EoE patients with asthma, and the mean difference was 5.480 years in female patients (P < .001 for both).

Although the direct cause of earlier hospitalization among patients with concomitant EoE and asthma is unclear, Dr. Pham speculated that the combination of atopic diseases may be leading to a stronger inflammatory response.

It remains to be seen if a similar relationship occurs with other atopic diseases, and future research could examine other factors. “I think it’d be good to look at not just age and gender, but BMI and occupation, things like that,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was of particular interest to Michelle Robertson, MD, who was in the audience. She is the director for clinical services at the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence at the New Jersey War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center. “We see a significant number of [veterans] who have been diagnosed with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, and our thinking is that that is likely related to some of the military exposures: In particular, [what the] deployed veterans encountered in the Gulf War, [such as] the smoke from burn pits, sand and dust storms, and smoke from oil well fires. Our thinking is that the particulate matter, the PM 2.5, the very, very tiny particles, may be either sensitizing the lung area and/or esophagus and predisposing them to having those symptoms when they return home,” said Dr. Robertson, in an interview.

Particles in this size range may be able to bypass the protected areas of the nose and the lungs to reach the alveoli, where they could potentially interfere with the transfer of air between the lungs and the rest of the body, which could in turn lead to a variety of inflammatory conditions, according to Dr. Robertson.

She noted that particle exposure varies with a soldier’s wartime occupation, with higher exposures among mechanics and burn pit managers, for example. However, the highest levels of exposure do not predict later illness, which is a natural prompt for future research. “The second part of this whole pathophysiology is susceptibility. Is there something about those people that do get sick that makes them more susceptible than folks that don’t, even though they both have the same jobs?”

Dr. Pham and Dr. Robertson have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Hospitalized patients with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were a younger average age than those hospitalized with asthma alone, according to a new analysis of data from HCA Healthcare.

Not much work has been done on the overlap between the two conditions, both of which are believed to be driven by the action of both eosinophils and helper T cells, according to Linda Pham, DO, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“I have a colleague who is interested in GI and he’s really interested in EOE. We thought it would be nice to look at those populations of patients to see if there’s a correlation between them aside from just the atopic disease,” said Dr. Pham, who is an internal medicine resident at Riverside (Calif.) Community Hospital.

The findings underscore the need for assessing individual patient risk. “Having another concomitant disease like EoE, or maybe like atopic dermatitis, might cause you to have more severe [asthma] exacerbations causing you to go into the hospital more. I think if patients have more of these diseases, doctors can be more cognizant that they need to really be on top of treatment and make sure that [their patients] are aware of themselves so that if their symptoms exacerbate, they can go to the hospital and seek care,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was a retrospective analysis of 3,678,812 patients with asthma and 5,823 patients with both EoE and asthma. The data was drawn from 185 HCA hospitals, with records between 2016 and 2021.

The incidence of both asthma and asthma with EoE remained stable between 2016 and 2021. Dr. Pham pointed out that there are good methods to diagnose both conditions, which suggests that existing treatments are effective enough to be limiting the need for emergency treatment, according to Dr. Pham.

Among patients hospitalized with asthma alone, 72.55% were female, while 27.45% were male (P < .001). The numbers were much more evenly split among those with asthma and EoE, at 51.78% and 48.22%, respectively. The differing gender statistics aren’t easy to explain. “It’s not quite clear whether it’s because they just have more severe symptoms, or if it is other factors causing women to seek care more than their male counterparts. It could be personal biases, or it could be the asthma itself that is more severe in women,” said Dr. Pham.

When they broke down the analysis by sex, the researchers found that male EoE patients without asthma were a mean value of 5.517 years older than male EoE patients with asthma, and the mean difference was 5.480 years in female patients (P < .001 for both).

Although the direct cause of earlier hospitalization among patients with concomitant EoE and asthma is unclear, Dr. Pham speculated that the combination of atopic diseases may be leading to a stronger inflammatory response.

It remains to be seen if a similar relationship occurs with other atopic diseases, and future research could examine other factors. “I think it’d be good to look at not just age and gender, but BMI and occupation, things like that,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was of particular interest to Michelle Robertson, MD, who was in the audience. She is the director for clinical services at the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence at the New Jersey War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center. “We see a significant number of [veterans] who have been diagnosed with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, and our thinking is that that is likely related to some of the military exposures: In particular, [what the] deployed veterans encountered in the Gulf War, [such as] the smoke from burn pits, sand and dust storms, and smoke from oil well fires. Our thinking is that the particulate matter, the PM 2.5, the very, very tiny particles, may be either sensitizing the lung area and/or esophagus and predisposing them to having those symptoms when they return home,” said Dr. Robertson, in an interview.

Particles in this size range may be able to bypass the protected areas of the nose and the lungs to reach the alveoli, where they could potentially interfere with the transfer of air between the lungs and the rest of the body, which could in turn lead to a variety of inflammatory conditions, according to Dr. Robertson.

She noted that particle exposure varies with a soldier’s wartime occupation, with higher exposures among mechanics and burn pit managers, for example. However, the highest levels of exposure do not predict later illness, which is a natural prompt for future research. “The second part of this whole pathophysiology is susceptibility. Is there something about those people that do get sick that makes them more susceptible than folks that don’t, even though they both have the same jobs?”

Dr. Pham and Dr. Robertson have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people are at increased risk for asthma severity, compared with non-SGM people, and asthma is especially exacerbated in SGM persons who use e-cigarettes compared with heterosexuals.

These findings come from a study of asthma severity among SGM people, with a special focus on the contribution of tobacco, reported Tugba Kaplan, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Md.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing asthma severity among SGM people in a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

There has been only limited research on the health status and health needs of SGM people, and most of the studies conducted have focused on issues such as HIV/AIDS, sexual health, and substance use, not respiratory health, she said.
 

Following the PATH

Dr. Kaplan and colleagues drew on data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study with data on approximately 46,000 adults and adolescents in the United States.

The study uses self-reported data on tobacco use patterns; perceptions of risk and attitudes toward tobacco products; tobacco initiation, cessation, and relapse; and associated health outcomes.

The investigators combined data from three waves of the PATH Study, conducted from 2015 to 2019 on nonpregnant participants aged 18 years and older, and used mixed-effect logistic regression models to look for potential associations between sexual orientation and asthma severity.

They used standard definitions of asthma severity, based on lung function impairment measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity, nighttime awakenings, use of a short-acting beta2-agonist for symptoms, interference with normal activity, and exacerbations requiring oral systemic corticosteroids.

The study also includes a sexual orientation question, asking participants, “do you consider yourself to be ...” with the options “straight, lesbian or gay, bisexual, something else, don’t know, or refused.”

Based on these responses, Dr. Kaplan and colleagues studied a total sample of 1,815 people who identify as SGM and 12,879 who identify as non-SGM.
 

Risks increased

In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, tobacco use, body mass index, physical activity, and asthma medication use, the authors found that, compared with non-SGM people, SGM respondents were significantly more likely to have had asthma attacks requiring steroid use in the past years (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.15), asthma interfering with daily activities in the past month (OR, 1.33; CI, 1.10-1.61), and shortness of breath in any week over the 30 days (OR, 1.82; CI, 1.32-2.51). There was no significant difference between the groups in inhaler use over the past month, however.

They also found two interactions in the logistic regression models, one between urgent care visits and respondents who reported using both regular tobacco and e-cigarettes (dual users), and between exclusive e-cigarette use and waking up at night.

Among dual users, SGM respondents had a nearly fourfold greater risk for asthma attacks requiring urgent care visits, compared with non-SGM respondents (OR, 3.89; CI, 1.99-7.63). In contrast, among those who never used tobacco, there were no significant differences between the sexual orientation groups in regard to asthma attacks requiring urgent care visits.

Among those who reported using e-cigarettes exclusively, SGM respondents were nearly eight times more likely to report night awakening, compared with non-SGM users (OR, 7.81; CI, 2.93-20.8).

Among never users, in contrast, there was no significant difference in nighttime disturbances.
 

Possible confounders

The data suggest that “in the context of chronic illnesses like asthma, it is crucial to offer patients the knowledge and tools required to proficiently handle their conditions,” Dr. Kaplan said, adding that the differences seen between SGM and non-SGM respondents may be caused by health care disparities among SGM people that result in nonadherence to regular follow-ups.

In an interview, Jean Bourbeau, MD, MSc, who was a moderator for the session but was not involved in the study, commented that “we have to be very careful before making any conclusions, because this population could be at high risk for different reasons, and especially, do they get the same attention in terms of the care that is provided to the general population, and do they get access to the same medication?”

Nonetheless, Dr. Bourbeau continued, “I think this study is very important, because it shows us how much awareness we need to determine differences in populations, and [sexual orientation] is probably one thing that nobody had considered before, and for the first time we are now considering these potential differences in our population.”

The authors did not report a study funding source. Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Bourbeau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

HONOLULU – Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people are at increased risk for asthma severity, compared with non-SGM people, and asthma is especially exacerbated in SGM persons who use e-cigarettes compared with heterosexuals.

These findings come from a study of asthma severity among SGM people, with a special focus on the contribution of tobacco, reported Tugba Kaplan, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Md.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing asthma severity among SGM people in a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

There has been only limited research on the health status and health needs of SGM people, and most of the studies conducted have focused on issues such as HIV/AIDS, sexual health, and substance use, not respiratory health, she said.
 

Following the PATH

Dr. Kaplan and colleagues drew on data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study with data on approximately 46,000 adults and adolescents in the United States.

The study uses self-reported data on tobacco use patterns; perceptions of risk and attitudes toward tobacco products; tobacco initiation, cessation, and relapse; and associated health outcomes.

The investigators combined data from three waves of the PATH Study, conducted from 2015 to 2019 on nonpregnant participants aged 18 years and older, and used mixed-effect logistic regression models to look for potential associations between sexual orientation and asthma severity.

They used standard definitions of asthma severity, based on lung function impairment measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity, nighttime awakenings, use of a short-acting beta2-agonist for symptoms, interference with normal activity, and exacerbations requiring oral systemic corticosteroids.

The study also includes a sexual orientation question, asking participants, “do you consider yourself to be ...” with the options “straight, lesbian or gay, bisexual, something else, don’t know, or refused.”

Based on these responses, Dr. Kaplan and colleagues studied a total sample of 1,815 people who identify as SGM and 12,879 who identify as non-SGM.
 

Risks increased

In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, tobacco use, body mass index, physical activity, and asthma medication use, the authors found that, compared with non-SGM people, SGM respondents were significantly more likely to have had asthma attacks requiring steroid use in the past years (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.15), asthma interfering with daily activities in the past month (OR, 1.33; CI, 1.10-1.61), and shortness of breath in any week over the 30 days (OR, 1.82; CI, 1.32-2.51). There was no significant difference between the groups in inhaler use over the past month, however.

They also found two interactions in the logistic regression models, one between urgent care visits and respondents who reported using both regular tobacco and e-cigarettes (dual users), and between exclusive e-cigarette use and waking up at night.

Among dual users, SGM respondents had a nearly fourfold greater risk for asthma attacks requiring urgent care visits, compared with non-SGM respondents (OR, 3.89; CI, 1.99-7.63). In contrast, among those who never used tobacco, there were no significant differences between the sexual orientation groups in regard to asthma attacks requiring urgent care visits.

Among those who reported using e-cigarettes exclusively, SGM respondents were nearly eight times more likely to report night awakening, compared with non-SGM users (OR, 7.81; CI, 2.93-20.8).

Among never users, in contrast, there was no significant difference in nighttime disturbances.
 

Possible confounders

The data suggest that “in the context of chronic illnesses like asthma, it is crucial to offer patients the knowledge and tools required to proficiently handle their conditions,” Dr. Kaplan said, adding that the differences seen between SGM and non-SGM respondents may be caused by health care disparities among SGM people that result in nonadherence to regular follow-ups.

In an interview, Jean Bourbeau, MD, MSc, who was a moderator for the session but was not involved in the study, commented that “we have to be very careful before making any conclusions, because this population could be at high risk for different reasons, and especially, do they get the same attention in terms of the care that is provided to the general population, and do they get access to the same medication?”

Nonetheless, Dr. Bourbeau continued, “I think this study is very important, because it shows us how much awareness we need to determine differences in populations, and [sexual orientation] is probably one thing that nobody had considered before, and for the first time we are now considering these potential differences in our population.”

The authors did not report a study funding source. Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Bourbeau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

HONOLULU – Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people are at increased risk for asthma severity, compared with non-SGM people, and asthma is especially exacerbated in SGM persons who use e-cigarettes compared with heterosexuals.

These findings come from a study of asthma severity among SGM people, with a special focus on the contribution of tobacco, reported Tugba Kaplan, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Md.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing asthma severity among SGM people in a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

There has been only limited research on the health status and health needs of SGM people, and most of the studies conducted have focused on issues such as HIV/AIDS, sexual health, and substance use, not respiratory health, she said.
 

Following the PATH

Dr. Kaplan and colleagues drew on data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study with data on approximately 46,000 adults and adolescents in the United States.

The study uses self-reported data on tobacco use patterns; perceptions of risk and attitudes toward tobacco products; tobacco initiation, cessation, and relapse; and associated health outcomes.

The investigators combined data from three waves of the PATH Study, conducted from 2015 to 2019 on nonpregnant participants aged 18 years and older, and used mixed-effect logistic regression models to look for potential associations between sexual orientation and asthma severity.

They used standard definitions of asthma severity, based on lung function impairment measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity, nighttime awakenings, use of a short-acting beta2-agonist for symptoms, interference with normal activity, and exacerbations requiring oral systemic corticosteroids.

The study also includes a sexual orientation question, asking participants, “do you consider yourself to be ...” with the options “straight, lesbian or gay, bisexual, something else, don’t know, or refused.”

Based on these responses, Dr. Kaplan and colleagues studied a total sample of 1,815 people who identify as SGM and 12,879 who identify as non-SGM.
 

Risks increased

In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, tobacco use, body mass index, physical activity, and asthma medication use, the authors found that, compared with non-SGM people, SGM respondents were significantly more likely to have had asthma attacks requiring steroid use in the past years (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.15), asthma interfering with daily activities in the past month (OR, 1.33; CI, 1.10-1.61), and shortness of breath in any week over the 30 days (OR, 1.82; CI, 1.32-2.51). There was no significant difference between the groups in inhaler use over the past month, however.

They also found two interactions in the logistic regression models, one between urgent care visits and respondents who reported using both regular tobacco and e-cigarettes (dual users), and between exclusive e-cigarette use and waking up at night.

Among dual users, SGM respondents had a nearly fourfold greater risk for asthma attacks requiring urgent care visits, compared with non-SGM respondents (OR, 3.89; CI, 1.99-7.63). In contrast, among those who never used tobacco, there were no significant differences between the sexual orientation groups in regard to asthma attacks requiring urgent care visits.

Among those who reported using e-cigarettes exclusively, SGM respondents were nearly eight times more likely to report night awakening, compared with non-SGM users (OR, 7.81; CI, 2.93-20.8).

Among never users, in contrast, there was no significant difference in nighttime disturbances.
 

Possible confounders

The data suggest that “in the context of chronic illnesses like asthma, it is crucial to offer patients the knowledge and tools required to proficiently handle their conditions,” Dr. Kaplan said, adding that the differences seen between SGM and non-SGM respondents may be caused by health care disparities among SGM people that result in nonadherence to regular follow-ups.

In an interview, Jean Bourbeau, MD, MSc, who was a moderator for the session but was not involved in the study, commented that “we have to be very careful before making any conclusions, because this population could be at high risk for different reasons, and especially, do they get the same attention in terms of the care that is provided to the general population, and do they get access to the same medication?”

Nonetheless, Dr. Bourbeau continued, “I think this study is very important, because it shows us how much awareness we need to determine differences in populations, and [sexual orientation] is probably one thing that nobody had considered before, and for the first time we are now considering these potential differences in our population.”

The authors did not report a study funding source. Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Bourbeau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.

Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
 

Shutting down the disease process

When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”

GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”

Shared mechanism

Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.

Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.² When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”

The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.³

Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.⁴ Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.

However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.

“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”

Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.

Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:

• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.

• Very slow nerve conduction.

• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).

Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.

After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.⁵ Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.⁶

Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.⁶All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”

Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.⁷

“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”

Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.

“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
 

Recap of diagnosis and treatment

For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.

IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.

However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.⁸ Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
 

COVID-19 and GBS triggers

Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.

The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.

Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.⁹ “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.

GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”

The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.

The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
 

GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’

A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”

Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”

COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.¹⁰ As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.

Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.¹¹ Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.

The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.¹² In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”

The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”

It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.

Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
 

References

1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.

2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.

3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.

4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.

5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.

6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.

7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.

8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.

9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.

10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.

11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.

12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
 

Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.

Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
 

Shutting down the disease process

When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”

GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”

Shared mechanism

Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.

Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.² When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”

The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.³

Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.⁴ Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.

However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.

“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”

Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.

Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:

• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.

• Very slow nerve conduction.

• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).

Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.

After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.⁵ Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.⁶

Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.⁶All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”

Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.⁷

“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”

Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.

“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
 

Recap of diagnosis and treatment

For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.

IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.

However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.⁸ Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
 

COVID-19 and GBS triggers

Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.

The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.

Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.⁹ “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.

GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”

The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.

The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
 

GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’

A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”

Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”

COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.¹⁰ As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.

Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.¹¹ Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.

The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.¹² In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”

The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”

It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.

Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
 

References

1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.

2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.

3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.

4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.

5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.

6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.

7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.

8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.

9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.

10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.

11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.

12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
 

Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.

Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
 

Shutting down the disease process

When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”

GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”

Shared mechanism

Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.

Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.² When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”

The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.³

Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.⁴ Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.

However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.

“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”

Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.

Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:

• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.

• Very slow nerve conduction.

• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).

Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.

After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.⁵ Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.⁶

Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.⁶All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”

Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.⁷

“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”

Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.

“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
 

Recap of diagnosis and treatment

For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.

IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.

However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.⁸ Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
 

COVID-19 and GBS triggers

Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.

The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.

Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.⁹ “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.

GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”

The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.

The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
 

GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’

A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”

Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”

COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.¹⁰ As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.

Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.¹¹ Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.

The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.¹² In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”

The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”

It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.

Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
 

References

1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.

2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.

3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.

4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.

5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.

6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.

7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.

8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.

9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.

10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.

11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.

12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
 

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that typically affects the face (cheeks), neck, arms, and legs but usually spares the groin and axillary regions. AD usually starts in early infancy but also affects some adults. AD is often associated with elevated levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE). That it is the first disease to present in a series of allergic diseases – including food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, in order – and has given rise to the “atopic march” theory, which suggests that AD is part of a progression that may lead to subsequent allergic disease at other epithelial barrier surfaces.

Here are five things to know about atopic dermatitis.
 

1. Essential features of AD are pruritus and eczema

The diagnosis of AD is primarily observational. It is made on the basis of patient and family history, pattern of lesions, morphology, and clinical signs. No genetic features or biomarkers are specific enough to reliably aid in diagnosis or severity assessment. Many individual findings are used to diagnose AD, as summarized by the American Academy of Dermatology based on essential, important, associated, and exclusionary features:

• Essential features (must be present for diagnosis) are pruritus and eczema (acute, subacute, or chronic) with typical morphology and age-specific patterns and chronic or relapsing history.
• Important features (usually seen in AD and support the diagnosis) are early age of onset, atopy (personal/family history, IgE reactivity), and xerosis.
• Associated features (nonspecific but suggestive) are atypical vascular response (e.g., delayed blanch response); keratosis pilaris (and some others); ocular/periorbital changes; other regional findings (e.g., perioral changes); and perifollicular accentuation, lichenification, or prurigo lesions.
• Exclusionary conditions (must be excluded to make the AD diagnosis) are scabies, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, ichthyoses, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, psoriasis, photosensitivity dermatoses, immune deficiency diseases, and erythroderma due to other causes.

AD should be differentiated from other red, scaly skin conditions. It is often difficult to separate AD from seborrheic dermatitis in infancy, and the two conditions may overlap in this age group. Particularly if the condition is not responding to therapy, the diagnosis of AD should be re-reviewed and other disorders considered, including more serious nutritional, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in children and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in adults. Allergic contact dermatitis may be both an alternative diagnosis to AD and an exacerbator of AD in some individuals.
 

2. Associated comorbidities of AD may exacerbate the condition and lead to other atopic disorders

Reported comorbidities of AD include other atopic or allergic conditions, autoimmune diseases, infections, metabolic conditions, mental health disorders, and cardiovascular disease. Certain aspects of AD, such as chronic pruritus, psychosocial distress, and inflammation, can lead to anxiety, depression, and suicidality. AD is associated with and may predispose to higher risk for other atopic disorders, including asthma, hay fever, food allergy, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Persons with AD also appear to be at higher risk for infectious diseases. The prevalence of cutaneous and systemic infections in patients with AD is significantly higher than those without AD. Infectious complications can include skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteremia, eczema herpeticum, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, and septic arthritis.
 

3. Climate change has a profound impact on AD

The incidence of AD has increased over the past several decades, and environmental factors such as climate change have been implicated as a potential mechanism. Climate change–related factors affect the skin’s capacity to maintain homeostasis, leading to various cutaneous diseases. AD, psoriasis, pemphigus, acne vulgaris, melasma, and photoaging are all associated with rising levels of air pollution. Elevated temperatures due to global warming induce disruption of the skin microbiome, thereby affecting AD.

Extreme weather events due to climate change, including floods and wildfires, are implicated in cutaneous injuries, skin infections, and acute worsening of inflammatory skin disorders.
 

4. The impact and appearance of AD varies in different racial groups

It was once believed that AD was just one single disease affecting people of many different races. More recently, it has been proposed that AD is in fact a group of different diseases. Both epidemiologic and genetic factors may play a role in influencing the main features of AD.

Spongiotic processes such as AD that would be pink or erythematous on white skin are often hypopigmented in individuals with darkly pigmented skin. AD has a higher prevalence and severity in Black and mixed-race populations, probably owing to a combination of environmental and intrinsic factors. Black skin has been shown to have increased transepidermal water loss and lower levels of ceramides, which are important components of the lipid barrier in the stratum corneum.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, along with the Allergy & Asthma Network, are partnering to create Eczema in Skin of Color, a website to aid physicians and patients in recognizing eczema in people with all skin types.
 

5. New and emerging therapies are poised to improve outcomes with AD treatment

Ruxolitinib cream, a topical Janus kinase (JAK)-1/JAK2 inhibitor, was approved for AD by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2021. The approval was based on results from the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in AD (TRuE-AD) clinical trial program, which consisted of phase 3 studies that investigated 1,249 patients aged greater than or equal to 12 years with mild to moderate AD (Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 2-3) with a body surface area of 3%-20% (excluding scalp). The 2023 AAD guidelines for topical treatment recommend ruxolitinib cream for adults with mild to moderate AD.

Tralokinumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the interleukin-13 cytokines, which prevents the release of cytokines, chemokines, and IgE. It was approved by the FDA in 2021 for treatment of moderate to severe AD. It is administered by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Approval was based on the phase 3 trials ECZTRA 1, 2, and 3, which assessed the efficacy of tralokinumab in 1,934 adults.

Abrocitinib is an oral, once-daily JAK1 inhibitor for treatment of adults living with refractory, moderate to severe AD. FDA approval was based on results of five clinical trials from a large-scale trial program of more than 1,600 patients. Across the trials, abrocitinib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and profound improvements in skin clearance, extent of disease, and severity, as well as rapid improvement in itch after 2 weeks, for some people living with AD vs placebo.

Upadacitinib, another oral JAK1 inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in January 2022 for refractory moderate to severe AD. Approval was based on three double-blind phase 3 trials (Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, AD Up) in which 2,584 patients with moderate to severe AD were randomized to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg/d and 30 mg/d. In Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, upadacitinib was evaluated as monotherapy; in AD Up, upadacitinib was evaluated in combination with topical corticosteroids.
 

On the horizon

Baricitinib, an oral JAK1/2 inhibitor, is not yet approved by the FDA for AD. It is, however, approved for moderate to severe AD treatment in the European Union and many other countries. A 2022 review of studies evaluating baricitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults (BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, -AD3, -AD4, -AD5, -AD6) reported that current evidence supports baricitinib, used as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as a safe and effective agent that can be used as an alternative to subcutaneous biologics in adults with moderate to severe AD.

Topical JAK inhibitors

A 2023 systematic review (19 studies, 3,600 participants) reported on several topical JAK inhibitors that are effective for treating AD. It suggests a stronger safety profile and better results, compared with systemic JAK inhibitors. The review focused on topical delgocitinib, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, cerdulatinib, and ifidancitinib. All agents were effective in treating AD. All of these topical JAK inhibitors had minimal risk for mild to moderate adverse effects.

Biologics

Lebrikizumab was evaluated in a phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. After 16 weeks (280 participants), patients with moderate to severe AD showed a dose-dependent significant improvement in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo. Two phase 3 trials (ADvocate1, ADvocate2) evaluated the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

Nemolizumab, assessed in long-term phase 3 trials of AD-associated pruritus, resulted in clinically meaningful improvements from the beginning of treatment to week 68. Nemolizumab is being evaluated in two identical phase 3 studies (Arcadia 1, Arcadia 2) and a long-term extension study.

Dr. Kim is Professor and Vice Chair of Research in the department of dermatology, as well as Director of the Mark Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He reported conflicts of interest with 23andMe, Abrax Japan, AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, and KiiRNA Biotech.

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

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that typically affects the face (cheeks), neck, arms, and legs but usually spares the groin and axillary regions. AD usually starts in early infancy but also affects some adults. AD is often associated with elevated levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE). That it is the first disease to present in a series of allergic diseases – including food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, in order – and has given rise to the “atopic march” theory, which suggests that AD is part of a progression that may lead to subsequent allergic disease at other epithelial barrier surfaces.

Here are five things to know about atopic dermatitis.
 

1. Essential features of AD are pruritus and eczema

The diagnosis of AD is primarily observational. It is made on the basis of patient and family history, pattern of lesions, morphology, and clinical signs. No genetic features or biomarkers are specific enough to reliably aid in diagnosis or severity assessment. Many individual findings are used to diagnose AD, as summarized by the American Academy of Dermatology based on essential, important, associated, and exclusionary features:

• Essential features (must be present for diagnosis) are pruritus and eczema (acute, subacute, or chronic) with typical morphology and age-specific patterns and chronic or relapsing history.
• Important features (usually seen in AD and support the diagnosis) are early age of onset, atopy (personal/family history, IgE reactivity), and xerosis.
• Associated features (nonspecific but suggestive) are atypical vascular response (e.g., delayed blanch response); keratosis pilaris (and some others); ocular/periorbital changes; other regional findings (e.g., perioral changes); and perifollicular accentuation, lichenification, or prurigo lesions.
• Exclusionary conditions (must be excluded to make the AD diagnosis) are scabies, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, ichthyoses, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, psoriasis, photosensitivity dermatoses, immune deficiency diseases, and erythroderma due to other causes.

AD should be differentiated from other red, scaly skin conditions. It is often difficult to separate AD from seborrheic dermatitis in infancy, and the two conditions may overlap in this age group. Particularly if the condition is not responding to therapy, the diagnosis of AD should be re-reviewed and other disorders considered, including more serious nutritional, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in children and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in adults. Allergic contact dermatitis may be both an alternative diagnosis to AD and an exacerbator of AD in some individuals.
 

2. Associated comorbidities of AD may exacerbate the condition and lead to other atopic disorders

Reported comorbidities of AD include other atopic or allergic conditions, autoimmune diseases, infections, metabolic conditions, mental health disorders, and cardiovascular disease. Certain aspects of AD, such as chronic pruritus, psychosocial distress, and inflammation, can lead to anxiety, depression, and suicidality. AD is associated with and may predispose to higher risk for other atopic disorders, including asthma, hay fever, food allergy, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Persons with AD also appear to be at higher risk for infectious diseases. The prevalence of cutaneous and systemic infections in patients with AD is significantly higher than those without AD. Infectious complications can include skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteremia, eczema herpeticum, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, and septic arthritis.
 

3. Climate change has a profound impact on AD

The incidence of AD has increased over the past several decades, and environmental factors such as climate change have been implicated as a potential mechanism. Climate change–related factors affect the skin’s capacity to maintain homeostasis, leading to various cutaneous diseases. AD, psoriasis, pemphigus, acne vulgaris, melasma, and photoaging are all associated with rising levels of air pollution. Elevated temperatures due to global warming induce disruption of the skin microbiome, thereby affecting AD.

Extreme weather events due to climate change, including floods and wildfires, are implicated in cutaneous injuries, skin infections, and acute worsening of inflammatory skin disorders.
 

4. The impact and appearance of AD varies in different racial groups

It was once believed that AD was just one single disease affecting people of many different races. More recently, it has been proposed that AD is in fact a group of different diseases. Both epidemiologic and genetic factors may play a role in influencing the main features of AD.

Spongiotic processes such as AD that would be pink or erythematous on white skin are often hypopigmented in individuals with darkly pigmented skin. AD has a higher prevalence and severity in Black and mixed-race populations, probably owing to a combination of environmental and intrinsic factors. Black skin has been shown to have increased transepidermal water loss and lower levels of ceramides, which are important components of the lipid barrier in the stratum corneum.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, along with the Allergy & Asthma Network, are partnering to create Eczema in Skin of Color, a website to aid physicians and patients in recognizing eczema in people with all skin types.
 

5. New and emerging therapies are poised to improve outcomes with AD treatment

Ruxolitinib cream, a topical Janus kinase (JAK)-1/JAK2 inhibitor, was approved for AD by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2021. The approval was based on results from the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in AD (TRuE-AD) clinical trial program, which consisted of phase 3 studies that investigated 1,249 patients aged greater than or equal to 12 years with mild to moderate AD (Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 2-3) with a body surface area of 3%-20% (excluding scalp). The 2023 AAD guidelines for topical treatment recommend ruxolitinib cream for adults with mild to moderate AD.

Tralokinumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the interleukin-13 cytokines, which prevents the release of cytokines, chemokines, and IgE. It was approved by the FDA in 2021 for treatment of moderate to severe AD. It is administered by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Approval was based on the phase 3 trials ECZTRA 1, 2, and 3, which assessed the efficacy of tralokinumab in 1,934 adults.

Abrocitinib is an oral, once-daily JAK1 inhibitor for treatment of adults living with refractory, moderate to severe AD. FDA approval was based on results of five clinical trials from a large-scale trial program of more than 1,600 patients. Across the trials, abrocitinib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and profound improvements in skin clearance, extent of disease, and severity, as well as rapid improvement in itch after 2 weeks, for some people living with AD vs placebo.

Upadacitinib, another oral JAK1 inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in January 2022 for refractory moderate to severe AD. Approval was based on three double-blind phase 3 trials (Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, AD Up) in which 2,584 patients with moderate to severe AD were randomized to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg/d and 30 mg/d. In Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, upadacitinib was evaluated as monotherapy; in AD Up, upadacitinib was evaluated in combination with topical corticosteroids.
 

On the horizon

Baricitinib, an oral JAK1/2 inhibitor, is not yet approved by the FDA for AD. It is, however, approved for moderate to severe AD treatment in the European Union and many other countries. A 2022 review of studies evaluating baricitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults (BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, -AD3, -AD4, -AD5, -AD6) reported that current evidence supports baricitinib, used as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as a safe and effective agent that can be used as an alternative to subcutaneous biologics in adults with moderate to severe AD.

Topical JAK inhibitors

A 2023 systematic review (19 studies, 3,600 participants) reported on several topical JAK inhibitors that are effective for treating AD. It suggests a stronger safety profile and better results, compared with systemic JAK inhibitors. The review focused on topical delgocitinib, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, cerdulatinib, and ifidancitinib. All agents were effective in treating AD. All of these topical JAK inhibitors had minimal risk for mild to moderate adverse effects.

Biologics

Lebrikizumab was evaluated in a phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. After 16 weeks (280 participants), patients with moderate to severe AD showed a dose-dependent significant improvement in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo. Two phase 3 trials (ADvocate1, ADvocate2) evaluated the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

Nemolizumab, assessed in long-term phase 3 trials of AD-associated pruritus, resulted in clinically meaningful improvements from the beginning of treatment to week 68. Nemolizumab is being evaluated in two identical phase 3 studies (Arcadia 1, Arcadia 2) and a long-term extension study.

Dr. Kim is Professor and Vice Chair of Research in the department of dermatology, as well as Director of the Mark Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He reported conflicts of interest with 23andMe, Abrax Japan, AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, and KiiRNA Biotech.

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

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that typically affects the face (cheeks), neck, arms, and legs but usually spares the groin and axillary regions. AD usually starts in early infancy but also affects some adults. AD is often associated with elevated levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE). That it is the first disease to present in a series of allergic diseases – including food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, in order – and has given rise to the “atopic march” theory, which suggests that AD is part of a progression that may lead to subsequent allergic disease at other epithelial barrier surfaces.

Here are five things to know about atopic dermatitis.
 

1. Essential features of AD are pruritus and eczema

The diagnosis of AD is primarily observational. It is made on the basis of patient and family history, pattern of lesions, morphology, and clinical signs. No genetic features or biomarkers are specific enough to reliably aid in diagnosis or severity assessment. Many individual findings are used to diagnose AD, as summarized by the American Academy of Dermatology based on essential, important, associated, and exclusionary features:

• Essential features (must be present for diagnosis) are pruritus and eczema (acute, subacute, or chronic) with typical morphology and age-specific patterns and chronic or relapsing history.
• Important features (usually seen in AD and support the diagnosis) are early age of onset, atopy (personal/family history, IgE reactivity), and xerosis.
• Associated features (nonspecific but suggestive) are atypical vascular response (e.g., delayed blanch response); keratosis pilaris (and some others); ocular/periorbital changes; other regional findings (e.g., perioral changes); and perifollicular accentuation, lichenification, or prurigo lesions.
• Exclusionary conditions (must be excluded to make the AD diagnosis) are scabies, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, ichthyoses, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, psoriasis, photosensitivity dermatoses, immune deficiency diseases, and erythroderma due to other causes.

AD should be differentiated from other red, scaly skin conditions. It is often difficult to separate AD from seborrheic dermatitis in infancy, and the two conditions may overlap in this age group. Particularly if the condition is not responding to therapy, the diagnosis of AD should be re-reviewed and other disorders considered, including more serious nutritional, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in children and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in adults. Allergic contact dermatitis may be both an alternative diagnosis to AD and an exacerbator of AD in some individuals.
 

2. Associated comorbidities of AD may exacerbate the condition and lead to other atopic disorders

Reported comorbidities of AD include other atopic or allergic conditions, autoimmune diseases, infections, metabolic conditions, mental health disorders, and cardiovascular disease. Certain aspects of AD, such as chronic pruritus, psychosocial distress, and inflammation, can lead to anxiety, depression, and suicidality. AD is associated with and may predispose to higher risk for other atopic disorders, including asthma, hay fever, food allergy, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Persons with AD also appear to be at higher risk for infectious diseases. The prevalence of cutaneous and systemic infections in patients with AD is significantly higher than those without AD. Infectious complications can include skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteremia, eczema herpeticum, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, and septic arthritis.
 

3. Climate change has a profound impact on AD

The incidence of AD has increased over the past several decades, and environmental factors such as climate change have been implicated as a potential mechanism. Climate change–related factors affect the skin’s capacity to maintain homeostasis, leading to various cutaneous diseases. AD, psoriasis, pemphigus, acne vulgaris, melasma, and photoaging are all associated with rising levels of air pollution. Elevated temperatures due to global warming induce disruption of the skin microbiome, thereby affecting AD.

Extreme weather events due to climate change, including floods and wildfires, are implicated in cutaneous injuries, skin infections, and acute worsening of inflammatory skin disorders.
 

4. The impact and appearance of AD varies in different racial groups

It was once believed that AD was just one single disease affecting people of many different races. More recently, it has been proposed that AD is in fact a group of different diseases. Both epidemiologic and genetic factors may play a role in influencing the main features of AD.

Spongiotic processes such as AD that would be pink or erythematous on white skin are often hypopigmented in individuals with darkly pigmented skin. AD has a higher prevalence and severity in Black and mixed-race populations, probably owing to a combination of environmental and intrinsic factors. Black skin has been shown to have increased transepidermal water loss and lower levels of ceramides, which are important components of the lipid barrier in the stratum corneum.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, along with the Allergy & Asthma Network, are partnering to create Eczema in Skin of Color, a website to aid physicians and patients in recognizing eczema in people with all skin types.
 

5. New and emerging therapies are poised to improve outcomes with AD treatment

Ruxolitinib cream, a topical Janus kinase (JAK)-1/JAK2 inhibitor, was approved for AD by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2021. The approval was based on results from the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in AD (TRuE-AD) clinical trial program, which consisted of phase 3 studies that investigated 1,249 patients aged greater than or equal to 12 years with mild to moderate AD (Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 2-3) with a body surface area of 3%-20% (excluding scalp). The 2023 AAD guidelines for topical treatment recommend ruxolitinib cream for adults with mild to moderate AD.

Tralokinumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the interleukin-13 cytokines, which prevents the release of cytokines, chemokines, and IgE. It was approved by the FDA in 2021 for treatment of moderate to severe AD. It is administered by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Approval was based on the phase 3 trials ECZTRA 1, 2, and 3, which assessed the efficacy of tralokinumab in 1,934 adults.

Abrocitinib is an oral, once-daily JAK1 inhibitor for treatment of adults living with refractory, moderate to severe AD. FDA approval was based on results of five clinical trials from a large-scale trial program of more than 1,600 patients. Across the trials, abrocitinib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and profound improvements in skin clearance, extent of disease, and severity, as well as rapid improvement in itch after 2 weeks, for some people living with AD vs placebo.

Upadacitinib, another oral JAK1 inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in January 2022 for refractory moderate to severe AD. Approval was based on three double-blind phase 3 trials (Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, AD Up) in which 2,584 patients with moderate to severe AD were randomized to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg/d and 30 mg/d. In Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, upadacitinib was evaluated as monotherapy; in AD Up, upadacitinib was evaluated in combination with topical corticosteroids.
 

On the horizon

Baricitinib, an oral JAK1/2 inhibitor, is not yet approved by the FDA for AD. It is, however, approved for moderate to severe AD treatment in the European Union and many other countries. A 2022 review of studies evaluating baricitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults (BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, -AD3, -AD4, -AD5, -AD6) reported that current evidence supports baricitinib, used as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as a safe and effective agent that can be used as an alternative to subcutaneous biologics in adults with moderate to severe AD.

Topical JAK inhibitors

A 2023 systematic review (19 studies, 3,600 participants) reported on several topical JAK inhibitors that are effective for treating AD. It suggests a stronger safety profile and better results, compared with systemic JAK inhibitors. The review focused on topical delgocitinib, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, cerdulatinib, and ifidancitinib. All agents were effective in treating AD. All of these topical JAK inhibitors had minimal risk for mild to moderate adverse effects.

Biologics

Lebrikizumab was evaluated in a phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. After 16 weeks (280 participants), patients with moderate to severe AD showed a dose-dependent significant improvement in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo. Two phase 3 trials (ADvocate1, ADvocate2) evaluated the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

Nemolizumab, assessed in long-term phase 3 trials of AD-associated pruritus, resulted in clinically meaningful improvements from the beginning of treatment to week 68. Nemolizumab is being evaluated in two identical phase 3 studies (Arcadia 1, Arcadia 2) and a long-term extension study.

Dr. Kim is Professor and Vice Chair of Research in the department of dermatology, as well as Director of the Mark Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He reported conflicts of interest with 23andMe, Abrax Japan, AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, and KiiRNA Biotech.

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

Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) were significantly more likely to have positive patch test results than were children without AD, according to a study of over 900 children evaluated for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with patch testing, a finding that investigators say underscores the value of considering ACD in patients with AD and referring more children for testing.

ACD is underdetected in children with AD. In some cases, it may be misconstrued to be AD, and patch testing, the gold standard for diagnosing ACD, is often not performed, said senior author JiaDe Yu, MD, MS, a pediatric dermatologist and director of contact and occupational dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his co-authors, in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. JiaDe Yu

UCHealth

Top allergens

The top 10 allergens between children with and without AD were largely similar, the authors of the study report. Nickel was the most common allergen identified in both groups, and cobalt was in the top five for both groups. Fragrances (including hydroperoxides of linalool), preservatives (including methylisothiazolinone [MI]), and neomycin ranked in the top 10 in both groups, though prevalence differed.

MI, a preservative frequently used in personal care products and in other products like school glue and paint, was the second most common allergen identified in children with AD. Allergy to MI has “recently become an epidemic in the United States, with rapidly increasing prevalence and importance as a source of ACD among both children and adults,” the authors note.

Children with AD were significantly more likely, however, to have ACD to bacitracin (OR, 3.23; P = .030) and to cocamidopropyl betaine (OR, 3.69; P = .0007), the latter of which is a popular surfactant used in “baby” and “gentle” skincare products. This is unsurprising, given that children with AD are “more often exposed to a myriad of topical treatments,” Dr. Yu and his colleagues write.

Although not a top 10 allergen for either group, ACD to “carba mix,” a combination of three chemicals used to make medical adhesives and other rubber products (such as pacifiers, toys, school supplies, and rubber gloves) was significantly more common in children with AD than in those without (OR, 3.36; P = .025).

Among other findings from the study: Children with AD were more likely to have a longer history of dermatitis (4.1 vs. 1.6 years, P < .0001) prior to patch testing. Testing occurred at a mean age of 11 and 12.3 years for children with and without AD, respectively.

The number of allergens tested and the patch testing series chosen per patient were “not statistically different” between the children with and without AD, the researchers report.

Patch testing availability

Clinicians may be hesitant to subject a child to patch testing, but the process is well tolerated in most children, Dr. Perryman said. She uses a modified panel for children that omits less relevant allergens and usually limits patch testing to age 2 years or older due to a young child’s smaller surface area.

Dr. Yu, who developed an interest in patch testing during his residency at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he worked with a patch-testing expert, will test children as young as 3-4 months with a “small selection of patches.”

The challenge with a call for more patch testing is a shortage of trained physicians. “In all of Boston, where we have hundreds of dermatologists, there are only about four of us who really do patch testing. My wait time is about 6 months,” said Dr. Yu, who is also an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Allergists at Massachusetts General Hospital do “some patch testing ... but they refer a lot of the most complicated cases to me,” he said, noting that patch testing and management of ACD involves detailed counseling for patients about avoidance of allergens. “Overall dermatologists represent the largest group of doctors who have proficiency in patch testing, and there just aren’t many of us.”

Dr. Perryman also said that patch testing is often performed by dermatologists who specialize in treating ACD and AD, though there seems to be “regional variance” in the level of involvement of dermatologists and allergists in patch testing.

Not all residency programs have hands-on patch testing opportunities, Dr. Yu said. A study published in Dermatitis, which he co-authored, showed that in 2020, 47.5% of dermatology residency programs had formal patch testing rotations. This represented improvement but is still not enough, he said.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society offers patch-testing mentorship programs, and the American Academy of Dermatology has recently begun offered a patch testing workshop at its annual meetings, said Dr. Yu, who received 4 weeks of training in the Society’s mentorship program and is now involved in the American Academy of Dermatology’s workshops and as a trainer/lecturer at the Contact Dermatitis Institute.

The study was supported by the Dermatology Foundation. Dr. Yu and his co-investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Perryman had no disclosures.

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

Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) were significantly more likely to have positive patch test results than were children without AD, according to a study of over 900 children evaluated for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with patch testing, a finding that investigators say underscores the value of considering ACD in patients with AD and referring more children for testing.

ACD is underdetected in children with AD. In some cases, it may be misconstrued to be AD, and patch testing, the gold standard for diagnosing ACD, is often not performed, said senior author JiaDe Yu, MD, MS, a pediatric dermatologist and director of contact and occupational dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his co-authors, in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. JiaDe Yu

UCHealth

Top allergens

The top 10 allergens between children with and without AD were largely similar, the authors of the study report. Nickel was the most common allergen identified in both groups, and cobalt was in the top five for both groups. Fragrances (including hydroperoxides of linalool), preservatives (including methylisothiazolinone [MI]), and neomycin ranked in the top 10 in both groups, though prevalence differed.

MI, a preservative frequently used in personal care products and in other products like school glue and paint, was the second most common allergen identified in children with AD. Allergy to MI has “recently become an epidemic in the United States, with rapidly increasing prevalence and importance as a source of ACD among both children and adults,” the authors note.

Children with AD were significantly more likely, however, to have ACD to bacitracin (OR, 3.23; P = .030) and to cocamidopropyl betaine (OR, 3.69; P = .0007), the latter of which is a popular surfactant used in “baby” and “gentle” skincare products. This is unsurprising, given that children with AD are “more often exposed to a myriad of topical treatments,” Dr. Yu and his colleagues write.

Although not a top 10 allergen for either group, ACD to “carba mix,” a combination of three chemicals used to make medical adhesives and other rubber products (such as pacifiers, toys, school supplies, and rubber gloves) was significantly more common in children with AD than in those without (OR, 3.36; P = .025).

Among other findings from the study: Children with AD were more likely to have a longer history of dermatitis (4.1 vs. 1.6 years, P < .0001) prior to patch testing. Testing occurred at a mean age of 11 and 12.3 years for children with and without AD, respectively.

The number of allergens tested and the patch testing series chosen per patient were “not statistically different” between the children with and without AD, the researchers report.

Patch testing availability

Clinicians may be hesitant to subject a child to patch testing, but the process is well tolerated in most children, Dr. Perryman said. She uses a modified panel for children that omits less relevant allergens and usually limits patch testing to age 2 years or older due to a young child’s smaller surface area.

Dr. Yu, who developed an interest in patch testing during his residency at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he worked with a patch-testing expert, will test children as young as 3-4 months with a “small selection of patches.”

The challenge with a call for more patch testing is a shortage of trained physicians. “In all of Boston, where we have hundreds of dermatologists, there are only about four of us who really do patch testing. My wait time is about 6 months,” said Dr. Yu, who is also an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Allergists at Massachusetts General Hospital do “some patch testing ... but they refer a lot of the most complicated cases to me,” he said, noting that patch testing and management of ACD involves detailed counseling for patients about avoidance of allergens. “Overall dermatologists represent the largest group of doctors who have proficiency in patch testing, and there just aren’t many of us.”

Dr. Perryman also said that patch testing is often performed by dermatologists who specialize in treating ACD and AD, though there seems to be “regional variance” in the level of involvement of dermatologists and allergists in patch testing.

Not all residency programs have hands-on patch testing opportunities, Dr. Yu said. A study published in Dermatitis, which he co-authored, showed that in 2020, 47.5% of dermatology residency programs had formal patch testing rotations. This represented improvement but is still not enough, he said.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society offers patch-testing mentorship programs, and the American Academy of Dermatology has recently begun offered a patch testing workshop at its annual meetings, said Dr. Yu, who received 4 weeks of training in the Society’s mentorship program and is now involved in the American Academy of Dermatology’s workshops and as a trainer/lecturer at the Contact Dermatitis Institute.

The study was supported by the Dermatology Foundation. Dr. Yu and his co-investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Perryman had no disclosures.

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

Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) were significantly more likely to have positive patch test results than were children without AD, according to a study of over 900 children evaluated for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with patch testing, a finding that investigators say underscores the value of considering ACD in patients with AD and referring more children for testing.

ACD is underdetected in children with AD. In some cases, it may be misconstrued to be AD, and patch testing, the gold standard for diagnosing ACD, is often not performed, said senior author JiaDe Yu, MD, MS, a pediatric dermatologist and director of contact and occupational dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his co-authors, in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. JiaDe Yu

UCHealth

Top allergens

The top 10 allergens between children with and without AD were largely similar, the authors of the study report. Nickel was the most common allergen identified in both groups, and cobalt was in the top five for both groups. Fragrances (including hydroperoxides of linalool), preservatives (including methylisothiazolinone [MI]), and neomycin ranked in the top 10 in both groups, though prevalence differed.

MI, a preservative frequently used in personal care products and in other products like school glue and paint, was the second most common allergen identified in children with AD. Allergy to MI has “recently become an epidemic in the United States, with rapidly increasing prevalence and importance as a source of ACD among both children and adults,” the authors note.

Children with AD were significantly more likely, however, to have ACD to bacitracin (OR, 3.23; P = .030) and to cocamidopropyl betaine (OR, 3.69; P = .0007), the latter of which is a popular surfactant used in “baby” and “gentle” skincare products. This is unsurprising, given that children with AD are “more often exposed to a myriad of topical treatments,” Dr. Yu and his colleagues write.

Although not a top 10 allergen for either group, ACD to “carba mix,” a combination of three chemicals used to make medical adhesives and other rubber products (such as pacifiers, toys, school supplies, and rubber gloves) was significantly more common in children with AD than in those without (OR, 3.36; P = .025).

Among other findings from the study: Children with AD were more likely to have a longer history of dermatitis (4.1 vs. 1.6 years, P < .0001) prior to patch testing. Testing occurred at a mean age of 11 and 12.3 years for children with and without AD, respectively.

The number of allergens tested and the patch testing series chosen per patient were “not statistically different” between the children with and without AD, the researchers report.

Patch testing availability

Clinicians may be hesitant to subject a child to patch testing, but the process is well tolerated in most children, Dr. Perryman said. She uses a modified panel for children that omits less relevant allergens and usually limits patch testing to age 2 years or older due to a young child’s smaller surface area.

Dr. Yu, who developed an interest in patch testing during his residency at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he worked with a patch-testing expert, will test children as young as 3-4 months with a “small selection of patches.”

The challenge with a call for more patch testing is a shortage of trained physicians. “In all of Boston, where we have hundreds of dermatologists, there are only about four of us who really do patch testing. My wait time is about 6 months,” said Dr. Yu, who is also an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Allergists at Massachusetts General Hospital do “some patch testing ... but they refer a lot of the most complicated cases to me,” he said, noting that patch testing and management of ACD involves detailed counseling for patients about avoidance of allergens. “Overall dermatologists represent the largest group of doctors who have proficiency in patch testing, and there just aren’t many of us.”

Dr. Perryman also said that patch testing is often performed by dermatologists who specialize in treating ACD and AD, though there seems to be “regional variance” in the level of involvement of dermatologists and allergists in patch testing.

Not all residency programs have hands-on patch testing opportunities, Dr. Yu said. A study published in Dermatitis, which he co-authored, showed that in 2020, 47.5% of dermatology residency programs had formal patch testing rotations. This represented improvement but is still not enough, he said.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society offers patch-testing mentorship programs, and the American Academy of Dermatology has recently begun offered a patch testing workshop at its annual meetings, said Dr. Yu, who received 4 weeks of training in the Society’s mentorship program and is now involved in the American Academy of Dermatology’s workshops and as a trainer/lecturer at the Contact Dermatitis Institute.

The study was supported by the Dermatology Foundation. Dr. Yu and his co-investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Perryman had no disclosures.

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