User login
Quality of life benefit exaggerated in some cancer studies
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.
“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.
These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.
The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).
“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”
To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”
In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.
Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”
He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”
Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.
Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.
“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.
These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.
The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).
“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”
To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”
In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.
Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”
He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”
Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.
Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.
“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.
These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.
The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).
“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”
To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”
In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.
Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”
He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”
Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.
Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
First-ever Huntington staging system may jump-start drug development for early-stage disease
Researchers liken the Huntington’s disease Integrated Staging System (HD-ISS) to the system currently used to stage cancer. It groups patients according to their underlying biological, clinical, and functional characteristics.
It also includes criteria to biologically define Huntington’s disease stages across the entire disease spectrum, from birth to death, which is something that has not been done before. For now, the HD-ISS is only intended for research, but it could one day be modified for use in the clinic, investigators wrote.
“This systematization is of critical importance to select the most appropriate target population for clinical trials and studies,” said co-investigator Cristina Sampaio, MD, chief medical officer at the CHDI Foundation, Princeton, N.J.
“By providing a methodology to precisely define cases early in the neurodegenerative process, the HD-ISS will be instrumental in conducting trials in the very early disease stages,” Dr. Sampaio added.
The position paper was published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
New approach needed
There is no approved therapy to slow Huntington’s disease progression. Clinical trials currently enroll patients with demonstrable symptoms, which limits the ability to test therapeutics that could delay or prevent neurodegeneration.
Huntington’s disease is rare, occurring in about 2.7 per 100,000 individuals worldwide. It is caused by a mutation in the HTT gene involving a DNA segment known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.
Currently, Huntington’s disease is diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs that emerge late in the disease course, an approach developed before the discovery of the HTT gene and the development of the genetic test for the CAG mutation.
The disease phase prior to diagnosis has been described as presymptomatic, premanifest, or prodromal. However, the three terms have varying definitions that make it difficult to compare study results across trials.
Because drug development had focused on the overt motor sign phase of the disease, there was no real need for an evidence-based staging system that classified disease phases from birth, the investigators noted.
“Now, the research community and regulators recognize that it is critical to conduct trials early in the disease when no signs or overt symptoms are measurable,” Dr. Sampaio said.
Defining disease stages
Work on the staging system was done through the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, an international project begun in 2018 among biotech and pharma companies, academic institutions, and nonprofit research and advocacy organizations.
Overall, more than 50 clinicians and researchers were involved in developing the HD-ISS.
Using modeling data from four large observational studies that included patients with Huntington’s disease and control groups, researchers identified four different stages of Huntington’s disease:
- Stage 0: Begins at birth with identification of HTT gene mutations but no detectable pathologic changes.
- Stage 1: Begins when biomarker changes are detected via MRI by a volume decrease in six brain areas.
- Stage 2: Begins when clinical signs of Huntington’s disease are present, as determined through motor and cognitive assessments.
- Stage 3: Begins when functional decline is evident, with worsening on the Independence Scale and the Total Functional Capacity of the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale.
Applying the HD-ISS to clinical trials requires the collection of information routinely recorded in Huntington’s disease research, as well as some additional data, but researchers say its application is straightforward.
The HD-ISS uses a numerical staging system similar to that used in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and integrates the prodromal, presymptomatic, or premanifest phase of the disease. This distinguishes it from earlier classification systems.
The HD-ISS can be adapted if new Huntington’s disease biomarkers are identified.
“As research results are generated, this will further validate the HD-ISS and potentially lead to the development of a derivative, and possibly simplified, system for clinical practice,” Dr. Sampaio said.
The new system goes further than a more recent proposal from the Movement Disorder Society task force, which addresses earlier stages in Huntington’s disease but doesn’t consider objective biomarker data.
Question of timing
Commenting on the findings, Erin Furr-Stimming, MD, neurologist and director of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America Center of Excellence with McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, said targeting early-stage disease will be key.
“Similar to more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, there is a period of at least a decade when changes are occurring in the nervous system, prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms and signs significant enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
She noted that multiple trials of disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease have failed for a multitude of reasons, “but one consistent question that is relevant to all these diseases is that of timing: Should we intervene and test these therapies earlier?
“The premanifest or prodromal period may be the ideal time to intervene with a disease-modifying therapy, prior to onset of any neurodegeneration,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
The CHDI Foundation provided financial support to the Critical Path Institute for the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, including all working group efforts. Dr. Sampio is an employee of and receives salary from CHDI Management. She has also received consultancy honorariums (unrelated to HD) from Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, vTv Therapeutics, GW Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Neuroderm, Green Valley Pharmaceuticals, and Pinteon Pharmaceuticals. A full list of disclosures for the other researchers is in the original article. Dr. Furr-Stimming reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers liken the Huntington’s disease Integrated Staging System (HD-ISS) to the system currently used to stage cancer. It groups patients according to their underlying biological, clinical, and functional characteristics.
It also includes criteria to biologically define Huntington’s disease stages across the entire disease spectrum, from birth to death, which is something that has not been done before. For now, the HD-ISS is only intended for research, but it could one day be modified for use in the clinic, investigators wrote.
“This systematization is of critical importance to select the most appropriate target population for clinical trials and studies,” said co-investigator Cristina Sampaio, MD, chief medical officer at the CHDI Foundation, Princeton, N.J.
“By providing a methodology to precisely define cases early in the neurodegenerative process, the HD-ISS will be instrumental in conducting trials in the very early disease stages,” Dr. Sampaio added.
The position paper was published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
New approach needed
There is no approved therapy to slow Huntington’s disease progression. Clinical trials currently enroll patients with demonstrable symptoms, which limits the ability to test therapeutics that could delay or prevent neurodegeneration.
Huntington’s disease is rare, occurring in about 2.7 per 100,000 individuals worldwide. It is caused by a mutation in the HTT gene involving a DNA segment known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.
Currently, Huntington’s disease is diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs that emerge late in the disease course, an approach developed before the discovery of the HTT gene and the development of the genetic test for the CAG mutation.
The disease phase prior to diagnosis has been described as presymptomatic, premanifest, or prodromal. However, the three terms have varying definitions that make it difficult to compare study results across trials.
Because drug development had focused on the overt motor sign phase of the disease, there was no real need for an evidence-based staging system that classified disease phases from birth, the investigators noted.
“Now, the research community and regulators recognize that it is critical to conduct trials early in the disease when no signs or overt symptoms are measurable,” Dr. Sampaio said.
Defining disease stages
Work on the staging system was done through the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, an international project begun in 2018 among biotech and pharma companies, academic institutions, and nonprofit research and advocacy organizations.
Overall, more than 50 clinicians and researchers were involved in developing the HD-ISS.
Using modeling data from four large observational studies that included patients with Huntington’s disease and control groups, researchers identified four different stages of Huntington’s disease:
- Stage 0: Begins at birth with identification of HTT gene mutations but no detectable pathologic changes.
- Stage 1: Begins when biomarker changes are detected via MRI by a volume decrease in six brain areas.
- Stage 2: Begins when clinical signs of Huntington’s disease are present, as determined through motor and cognitive assessments.
- Stage 3: Begins when functional decline is evident, with worsening on the Independence Scale and the Total Functional Capacity of the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale.
Applying the HD-ISS to clinical trials requires the collection of information routinely recorded in Huntington’s disease research, as well as some additional data, but researchers say its application is straightforward.
The HD-ISS uses a numerical staging system similar to that used in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and integrates the prodromal, presymptomatic, or premanifest phase of the disease. This distinguishes it from earlier classification systems.
The HD-ISS can be adapted if new Huntington’s disease biomarkers are identified.
“As research results are generated, this will further validate the HD-ISS and potentially lead to the development of a derivative, and possibly simplified, system for clinical practice,” Dr. Sampaio said.
The new system goes further than a more recent proposal from the Movement Disorder Society task force, which addresses earlier stages in Huntington’s disease but doesn’t consider objective biomarker data.
Question of timing
Commenting on the findings, Erin Furr-Stimming, MD, neurologist and director of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America Center of Excellence with McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, said targeting early-stage disease will be key.
“Similar to more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, there is a period of at least a decade when changes are occurring in the nervous system, prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms and signs significant enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
She noted that multiple trials of disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease have failed for a multitude of reasons, “but one consistent question that is relevant to all these diseases is that of timing: Should we intervene and test these therapies earlier?
“The premanifest or prodromal period may be the ideal time to intervene with a disease-modifying therapy, prior to onset of any neurodegeneration,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
The CHDI Foundation provided financial support to the Critical Path Institute for the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, including all working group efforts. Dr. Sampio is an employee of and receives salary from CHDI Management. She has also received consultancy honorariums (unrelated to HD) from Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, vTv Therapeutics, GW Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Neuroderm, Green Valley Pharmaceuticals, and Pinteon Pharmaceuticals. A full list of disclosures for the other researchers is in the original article. Dr. Furr-Stimming reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers liken the Huntington’s disease Integrated Staging System (HD-ISS) to the system currently used to stage cancer. It groups patients according to their underlying biological, clinical, and functional characteristics.
It also includes criteria to biologically define Huntington’s disease stages across the entire disease spectrum, from birth to death, which is something that has not been done before. For now, the HD-ISS is only intended for research, but it could one day be modified for use in the clinic, investigators wrote.
“This systematization is of critical importance to select the most appropriate target population for clinical trials and studies,” said co-investigator Cristina Sampaio, MD, chief medical officer at the CHDI Foundation, Princeton, N.J.
“By providing a methodology to precisely define cases early in the neurodegenerative process, the HD-ISS will be instrumental in conducting trials in the very early disease stages,” Dr. Sampaio added.
The position paper was published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
New approach needed
There is no approved therapy to slow Huntington’s disease progression. Clinical trials currently enroll patients with demonstrable symptoms, which limits the ability to test therapeutics that could delay or prevent neurodegeneration.
Huntington’s disease is rare, occurring in about 2.7 per 100,000 individuals worldwide. It is caused by a mutation in the HTT gene involving a DNA segment known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.
Currently, Huntington’s disease is diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs that emerge late in the disease course, an approach developed before the discovery of the HTT gene and the development of the genetic test for the CAG mutation.
The disease phase prior to diagnosis has been described as presymptomatic, premanifest, or prodromal. However, the three terms have varying definitions that make it difficult to compare study results across trials.
Because drug development had focused on the overt motor sign phase of the disease, there was no real need for an evidence-based staging system that classified disease phases from birth, the investigators noted.
“Now, the research community and regulators recognize that it is critical to conduct trials early in the disease when no signs or overt symptoms are measurable,” Dr. Sampaio said.
Defining disease stages
Work on the staging system was done through the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, an international project begun in 2018 among biotech and pharma companies, academic institutions, and nonprofit research and advocacy organizations.
Overall, more than 50 clinicians and researchers were involved in developing the HD-ISS.
Using modeling data from four large observational studies that included patients with Huntington’s disease and control groups, researchers identified four different stages of Huntington’s disease:
- Stage 0: Begins at birth with identification of HTT gene mutations but no detectable pathologic changes.
- Stage 1: Begins when biomarker changes are detected via MRI by a volume decrease in six brain areas.
- Stage 2: Begins when clinical signs of Huntington’s disease are present, as determined through motor and cognitive assessments.
- Stage 3: Begins when functional decline is evident, with worsening on the Independence Scale and the Total Functional Capacity of the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale.
Applying the HD-ISS to clinical trials requires the collection of information routinely recorded in Huntington’s disease research, as well as some additional data, but researchers say its application is straightforward.
The HD-ISS uses a numerical staging system similar to that used in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and integrates the prodromal, presymptomatic, or premanifest phase of the disease. This distinguishes it from earlier classification systems.
The HD-ISS can be adapted if new Huntington’s disease biomarkers are identified.
“As research results are generated, this will further validate the HD-ISS and potentially lead to the development of a derivative, and possibly simplified, system for clinical practice,” Dr. Sampaio said.
The new system goes further than a more recent proposal from the Movement Disorder Society task force, which addresses earlier stages in Huntington’s disease but doesn’t consider objective biomarker data.
Question of timing
Commenting on the findings, Erin Furr-Stimming, MD, neurologist and director of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America Center of Excellence with McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, said targeting early-stage disease will be key.
“Similar to more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, there is a period of at least a decade when changes are occurring in the nervous system, prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms and signs significant enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
She noted that multiple trials of disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease have failed for a multitude of reasons, “but one consistent question that is relevant to all these diseases is that of timing: Should we intervene and test these therapies earlier?
“The premanifest or prodromal period may be the ideal time to intervene with a disease-modifying therapy, prior to onset of any neurodegeneration,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
The CHDI Foundation provided financial support to the Critical Path Institute for the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, including all working group efforts. Dr. Sampio is an employee of and receives salary from CHDI Management. She has also received consultancy honorariums (unrelated to HD) from Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, vTv Therapeutics, GW Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Neuroderm, Green Valley Pharmaceuticals, and Pinteon Pharmaceuticals. A full list of disclosures for the other researchers is in the original article. Dr. Furr-Stimming reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET NEUROLOGY
Acute hepatitis cases in children show declining trend; adenovirus, COVID-19 remain key leads
LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.
Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.
“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”
Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.
The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.
“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.
Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.
Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported
Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.
“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”
Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.
“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.
The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”
Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.
She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”
She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.
She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.
Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is
Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.
Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.
“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.
Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.
“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”
Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.
The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.
“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.
Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.
Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported
Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.
“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”
Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.
“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.
The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”
Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.
She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”
She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.
She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.
Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is
Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.
Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.
“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.
Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.
“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”
Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.
The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.
“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.
Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.
Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported
Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.
“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”
Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.
“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.
The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”
Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.
She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”
She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.
She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.
Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is
Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.
Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.
“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ILC 2022
FDA unveils 5-year plan for ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tofersen linked to slow, positive effects in ALS
caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.
The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.
“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”
Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
One-year VALOR study results
The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.
For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.
There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.
“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”
Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.
Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).
Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).
Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
The bigger picture
While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.
“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
What lies ahead?
Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug. I would like to be able to offer it to them. But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.
“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”
Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is. Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”
The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.
caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.
The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.
“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”
Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
One-year VALOR study results
The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.
For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.
There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.
“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”
Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.
Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).
Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).
Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
The bigger picture
While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.
“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
What lies ahead?
Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug. I would like to be able to offer it to them. But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.
“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”
Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is. Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”
The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.
caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.
The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.
“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”
Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
One-year VALOR study results
The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.
For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.
There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.
“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”
Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.
Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).
Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).
Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
The bigger picture
While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.
“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
What lies ahead?
Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug. I would like to be able to offer it to them. But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.
“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”
Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is. Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”
The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.
FROM THE ENCALS MEETING 2022
Pandemic public health measures may have mitigated Kawasaki disease
The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.
The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.
In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.
Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.
In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.
Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).
The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.
Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.
“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
Study fails to validate its conclusions
“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.
“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.
“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.
“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.
The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.
The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.
In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.
Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.
In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.
Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).
The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.
Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.
“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
Study fails to validate its conclusions
“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.
“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.
“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.
“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.
The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.
The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.
In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.
Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.
In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.
Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).
The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.
Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.
“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
Study fails to validate its conclusions
“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.
“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.
“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.
“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.
The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
FDA approves setmelanotide for obesity in Bardet-Biedl syndrome
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental indication for setmelanotide (Imcivree, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals) injection for chronic weight management in adults and pediatric patients age 6 and older with obesity due to Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS).
Setmelanotide, a melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist, is the first FDA-approved therapy for BBS, a rare genetic disorder that impairs a hunger signal along the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway.
BBS affects an estimated 1,500-2,500 people in the United States.
Individuals with BBS typically have obesity that starts at age 1 along with insatiable hunger (hyperphagia). Available weight management options are generally unsuccessful.
Other symptoms may include retinal degeneration, reduced kidney function, or extra digits of the hands or feet.
Setmelanotide received priority review, orphan drug designation, and breakthrough designation for this new indication.
As previously reported, in November 2020, the FDA approved setmelanotide for weight management in adults and children as young as 6 years with obesity due to proopiomelanocortin (POMC), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1), or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency confirmed by genetic testing – who also have impaired hunger signaling from the brain.
These individuals have a normal weight at birth but develop persistent, severe obesity within months due to hyperphagia.
The FDA approval of Imcivree for BBS “represents a significant milestone for Rhythm [Pharmaceuticals], validating our strategy of developing Imcivree for people with hyperphagia and severe obesity caused by rare MC4R-pathway diseases and allowing us to provide our precision therapy to an established community of patients living with BBS and their families who are eagerly awaiting a new treatment option,” said David Meeker, MD, chair, president and CEO of Rhythm, in a press release.
Safety, effectiveness in 66-week trial in 44 patients
The safety and effectiveness of setmelanotidewas evaluated in a 66-week phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled 44 patients age 6 and older who had a diagnosis of BBS and obesity – defined as a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 or greater than or equal to 97th percentile for pediatric patients.
After an initial 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, patients entered a 52-week, open-label period.
The trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in weight and hunger at 52 weeks on therapy.
- After 52 weeks of treatment, patients taking setmelanotide lost, on average, 7.9% of their initial BMI.
- 61% of patients lost 5% or more of their initial BMI, and 39% lost 10% or more of their initial BMI.
- In the 14-week, placebo-controlled treatment, on average, BMI dropped by 4.6% in the 22 patients treated with the study drug and dropped 0.1% in the 22 patients treated with placebo.
- At 52 weeks, the 14 patients aged 12 and older who were able to self-report their hunger had a significant –2.1 mean change in hunger score.
Setmelanotide is associated with the following warnings and precautions:
- Spontaneous penile erections in males and sexual adverse reactions in females. Instruct males with erection lasting longer than 4 hours to seek emergency medical attention.
- Depression and suicidal ideation. Monitor patients for new onset or worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Consider discontinuing the drug if patients have suicidal thoughts or behaviors or clinically significant or persistent depression symptoms.
- Skin pigmentation and darkening of preexisting nevi (moles). Examine skin before and during treatment.
- Setmelanotide is not approved for use in neonates or infants. Serious and fatal adverse reactions including “gasping syndrome” can occur in neonates and low-birth-weight infants treated with benzyl alcohol-preserved drugs.
The most common adverse reactions (with an incidence greater than or equal to 20%) included skin hyperpigmentation, injection site reactions, nausea, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, depression, and spontaneous penile erection.
The FDA did not approve the company’s supplemental new drug application for setmelanotide in Alström syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental indication for setmelanotide (Imcivree, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals) injection for chronic weight management in adults and pediatric patients age 6 and older with obesity due to Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS).
Setmelanotide, a melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist, is the first FDA-approved therapy for BBS, a rare genetic disorder that impairs a hunger signal along the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway.
BBS affects an estimated 1,500-2,500 people in the United States.
Individuals with BBS typically have obesity that starts at age 1 along with insatiable hunger (hyperphagia). Available weight management options are generally unsuccessful.
Other symptoms may include retinal degeneration, reduced kidney function, or extra digits of the hands or feet.
Setmelanotide received priority review, orphan drug designation, and breakthrough designation for this new indication.
As previously reported, in November 2020, the FDA approved setmelanotide for weight management in adults and children as young as 6 years with obesity due to proopiomelanocortin (POMC), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1), or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency confirmed by genetic testing – who also have impaired hunger signaling from the brain.
These individuals have a normal weight at birth but develop persistent, severe obesity within months due to hyperphagia.
The FDA approval of Imcivree for BBS “represents a significant milestone for Rhythm [Pharmaceuticals], validating our strategy of developing Imcivree for people with hyperphagia and severe obesity caused by rare MC4R-pathway diseases and allowing us to provide our precision therapy to an established community of patients living with BBS and their families who are eagerly awaiting a new treatment option,” said David Meeker, MD, chair, president and CEO of Rhythm, in a press release.
Safety, effectiveness in 66-week trial in 44 patients
The safety and effectiveness of setmelanotidewas evaluated in a 66-week phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled 44 patients age 6 and older who had a diagnosis of BBS and obesity – defined as a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 or greater than or equal to 97th percentile for pediatric patients.
After an initial 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, patients entered a 52-week, open-label period.
The trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in weight and hunger at 52 weeks on therapy.
- After 52 weeks of treatment, patients taking setmelanotide lost, on average, 7.9% of their initial BMI.
- 61% of patients lost 5% or more of their initial BMI, and 39% lost 10% or more of their initial BMI.
- In the 14-week, placebo-controlled treatment, on average, BMI dropped by 4.6% in the 22 patients treated with the study drug and dropped 0.1% in the 22 patients treated with placebo.
- At 52 weeks, the 14 patients aged 12 and older who were able to self-report their hunger had a significant –2.1 mean change in hunger score.
Setmelanotide is associated with the following warnings and precautions:
- Spontaneous penile erections in males and sexual adverse reactions in females. Instruct males with erection lasting longer than 4 hours to seek emergency medical attention.
- Depression and suicidal ideation. Monitor patients for new onset or worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Consider discontinuing the drug if patients have suicidal thoughts or behaviors or clinically significant or persistent depression symptoms.
- Skin pigmentation and darkening of preexisting nevi (moles). Examine skin before and during treatment.
- Setmelanotide is not approved for use in neonates or infants. Serious and fatal adverse reactions including “gasping syndrome” can occur in neonates and low-birth-weight infants treated with benzyl alcohol-preserved drugs.
The most common adverse reactions (with an incidence greater than or equal to 20%) included skin hyperpigmentation, injection site reactions, nausea, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, depression, and spontaneous penile erection.
The FDA did not approve the company’s supplemental new drug application for setmelanotide in Alström syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental indication for setmelanotide (Imcivree, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals) injection for chronic weight management in adults and pediatric patients age 6 and older with obesity due to Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS).
Setmelanotide, a melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist, is the first FDA-approved therapy for BBS, a rare genetic disorder that impairs a hunger signal along the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway.
BBS affects an estimated 1,500-2,500 people in the United States.
Individuals with BBS typically have obesity that starts at age 1 along with insatiable hunger (hyperphagia). Available weight management options are generally unsuccessful.
Other symptoms may include retinal degeneration, reduced kidney function, or extra digits of the hands or feet.
Setmelanotide received priority review, orphan drug designation, and breakthrough designation for this new indication.
As previously reported, in November 2020, the FDA approved setmelanotide for weight management in adults and children as young as 6 years with obesity due to proopiomelanocortin (POMC), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1), or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency confirmed by genetic testing – who also have impaired hunger signaling from the brain.
These individuals have a normal weight at birth but develop persistent, severe obesity within months due to hyperphagia.
The FDA approval of Imcivree for BBS “represents a significant milestone for Rhythm [Pharmaceuticals], validating our strategy of developing Imcivree for people with hyperphagia and severe obesity caused by rare MC4R-pathway diseases and allowing us to provide our precision therapy to an established community of patients living with BBS and their families who are eagerly awaiting a new treatment option,” said David Meeker, MD, chair, president and CEO of Rhythm, in a press release.
Safety, effectiveness in 66-week trial in 44 patients
The safety and effectiveness of setmelanotidewas evaluated in a 66-week phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled 44 patients age 6 and older who had a diagnosis of BBS and obesity – defined as a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 or greater than or equal to 97th percentile for pediatric patients.
After an initial 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, patients entered a 52-week, open-label period.
The trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in weight and hunger at 52 weeks on therapy.
- After 52 weeks of treatment, patients taking setmelanotide lost, on average, 7.9% of their initial BMI.
- 61% of patients lost 5% or more of their initial BMI, and 39% lost 10% or more of their initial BMI.
- In the 14-week, placebo-controlled treatment, on average, BMI dropped by 4.6% in the 22 patients treated with the study drug and dropped 0.1% in the 22 patients treated with placebo.
- At 52 weeks, the 14 patients aged 12 and older who were able to self-report their hunger had a significant –2.1 mean change in hunger score.
Setmelanotide is associated with the following warnings and precautions:
- Spontaneous penile erections in males and sexual adverse reactions in females. Instruct males with erection lasting longer than 4 hours to seek emergency medical attention.
- Depression and suicidal ideation. Monitor patients for new onset or worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Consider discontinuing the drug if patients have suicidal thoughts or behaviors or clinically significant or persistent depression symptoms.
- Skin pigmentation and darkening of preexisting nevi (moles). Examine skin before and during treatment.
- Setmelanotide is not approved for use in neonates or infants. Serious and fatal adverse reactions including “gasping syndrome” can occur in neonates and low-birth-weight infants treated with benzyl alcohol-preserved drugs.
The most common adverse reactions (with an incidence greater than or equal to 20%) included skin hyperpigmentation, injection site reactions, nausea, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, depression, and spontaneous penile erection.
The FDA did not approve the company’s supplemental new drug application for setmelanotide in Alström syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biomarkers may help to predict persistent oligoarticular JIA
Ongoing research in patients with oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) so far suggests that a set of biomarkers in synovial fluid may help to predict which patients may be more likely to stay with persistent oligoarticular disease rather than progress to polyarticular disease, according to new research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year. Identifying biomarkers in synovial fluid or possibly serum could aid families and physicians in being more proactive in treatment protocols, said AnneMarie C. Brescia, MD, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Del.
“JIA carries the risk of permanent joint damage and disability, which can result when joint involvement evolves from oligoarticular into a polyarticular course, termed extended oligoarticular disease,” Dr. Brescia told attendees. “Since disease progression increases the risk for disability, early prediction of this course is essential.”
This group – those whose oligoarticular disease will begin recruiting joints and ultimately become extended oligoarticular JIA – is “very important because they have been shown to have worse health-related quality of life and greater risk of needing a joint replacement than even polyarticular [JIA],” Dr. Brescia said. “So, our lab has really focused on trying to predict who will fall in this group.”
Melissa Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, was not involved in the study but agreed that having highly sensitive and specific biomarkers could be particularly helpful in clinical care.
“Biomarkers can help guide treatment decisions and help physicians and their patients share the decision-making about next choices and when to change,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization. “If a provider and parent know that their child has these markers in their serum or synovial fluid that may predict extension of their disease, then they may be more aggressive upfront with therapy.”
The study aimed to determine whether differential levels of synovial fluid proteins could be used to predict whether JIA would evolve into an extended course before it became clinically evident. Although early aggressive treatment is common with rheumatoid arthritis and can lead to remission, JIA treatment paradigms tend to be more reactive, Dr. Brescia said.
“It would be better to switch to proactive, that if we’re able to predict that this patient may have a more difficult course with extension to polyarticular, we could be prepared, we could inform the parents, and it would just help us have a more proactive approach,” she said.
The researchers used antibody arrays to detect the following inflammatory mediators in blinded samples: CD14, interleukin (IL)-1-alpha, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and angiogenin. They analyzed 37 samples with persistent disease and 32 samples from disease that had not yet extended but would become extended in that patient. The samples came from patients who were taking no medicines or only NSAIDs. The researchers assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. Sensitivity referred the biomarker’s ability to correctly indicate that the sample would extend, and specificity referred to the biomarker’s accuracy in determining that the disease in the sample would remain persistent.
Combining samples from cohorts at Nemours Children’s Health (14 persistent and 7 extended-to-be) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (23 persistent and 25 extended-to-be) yielded the following results:
The findings revealed that the selected biomarkers were more accurate at predicting whose disease would remain persistent than predicting those that would extend, Dr. Brescia said. CD14 was the most specific biomarker, and IL-6 was the most sensitive biomarker in both groups.
When the researchers translated the findings from ELISA to the Luminex platform, positive results in synovial fluid for all these biomarkers were also positive in serum samples. Although the differences between persistent and extended-to-be samples did not reach statistical significance using Luminex, the pattern was the same for each biomarker.
“Luminex is more sensitive than ELISA. We believe that conducting an LDA [linear discriminant analysis] using these Luminex measurements will allow us to determine new cutoffs or new protein levels that are appropriate for Luminex to predict who will extend,” Dr. Brescia said. “It’s also our goal to develop a serum panel because ... being able to detect these markers in serum would expand the applicability of these markers to more patients.”
Dr. Brescia then described the group’s work in defining clinically relevant subpopulations of patients based on fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS) cells in the synovial intimal lining that produce inflammatory cytokines.
“Our compelling, single-cell, RNA sequencing preliminary data revealing multiple subpopulations within the total FLS population supports our hypothesis that distinct FLS subpopulations correlate with clinical outcome,” said Dr. Brescia. They looked at the percentage of chondrocyte-like, fibroblast-like, and smooth muscle-like subpopulations in samples from patients with oligoarticular JIA, extended-to-be JIA, and polyarticular JIA. Chondrocytes occurred in the largest proportion, and polyarticular JIA FLS had the largest percentage of chondrocytes, compared with the other two subpopulation groups.
“This is a work in progress,” Dr. Brescia said, “so hopefully you’ll hear about it next year.” In response to an attendee’s question, she said she believes identifying reliable biomarkers will eventually lead to refining treatment paradigms.
“I think it will at least change the guidance we can provide parents about making next choices and how quickly to accelerate to those next choices,” Dr. Brescia said. For example, if a child’s serum or synovial fluid has markers that show a very high likelihood of extension, the parent may decide to proceed to the next level medication sooner. “I do think it will push both parents and doctors to be a little more proactive instead of reactive when the poor patient comes back with 13 joints involved when they had just been an oligo for years.”
Dr. Oliver noted the promise of CD14 and IL-6 in potentially predicting which patients’ disease will stay persistent but cautioned that it’s still early in evaluating these biomarkers, especially with the limited patient samples in this study.
“I think these results are promising, and it’s great that there are groups out there working on this,” Dr. Oliver said. “Once we have a reliable, highly sensitive and specific biomarker, that will definitely help providers, parents, and patients be more informed.”
The research was supported by the Open Net Foundation, the Arthritis Foundation, Delaware Community Foundation, the Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR) ACCEL Program, the Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, and CARRA. Dr. Brescia and Dr. Oliver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ongoing research in patients with oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) so far suggests that a set of biomarkers in synovial fluid may help to predict which patients may be more likely to stay with persistent oligoarticular disease rather than progress to polyarticular disease, according to new research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year. Identifying biomarkers in synovial fluid or possibly serum could aid families and physicians in being more proactive in treatment protocols, said AnneMarie C. Brescia, MD, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Del.
“JIA carries the risk of permanent joint damage and disability, which can result when joint involvement evolves from oligoarticular into a polyarticular course, termed extended oligoarticular disease,” Dr. Brescia told attendees. “Since disease progression increases the risk for disability, early prediction of this course is essential.”
This group – those whose oligoarticular disease will begin recruiting joints and ultimately become extended oligoarticular JIA – is “very important because they have been shown to have worse health-related quality of life and greater risk of needing a joint replacement than even polyarticular [JIA],” Dr. Brescia said. “So, our lab has really focused on trying to predict who will fall in this group.”
Melissa Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, was not involved in the study but agreed that having highly sensitive and specific biomarkers could be particularly helpful in clinical care.
“Biomarkers can help guide treatment decisions and help physicians and their patients share the decision-making about next choices and when to change,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization. “If a provider and parent know that their child has these markers in their serum or synovial fluid that may predict extension of their disease, then they may be more aggressive upfront with therapy.”
The study aimed to determine whether differential levels of synovial fluid proteins could be used to predict whether JIA would evolve into an extended course before it became clinically evident. Although early aggressive treatment is common with rheumatoid arthritis and can lead to remission, JIA treatment paradigms tend to be more reactive, Dr. Brescia said.
“It would be better to switch to proactive, that if we’re able to predict that this patient may have a more difficult course with extension to polyarticular, we could be prepared, we could inform the parents, and it would just help us have a more proactive approach,” she said.
The researchers used antibody arrays to detect the following inflammatory mediators in blinded samples: CD14, interleukin (IL)-1-alpha, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and angiogenin. They analyzed 37 samples with persistent disease and 32 samples from disease that had not yet extended but would become extended in that patient. The samples came from patients who were taking no medicines or only NSAIDs. The researchers assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. Sensitivity referred the biomarker’s ability to correctly indicate that the sample would extend, and specificity referred to the biomarker’s accuracy in determining that the disease in the sample would remain persistent.
Combining samples from cohorts at Nemours Children’s Health (14 persistent and 7 extended-to-be) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (23 persistent and 25 extended-to-be) yielded the following results:
The findings revealed that the selected biomarkers were more accurate at predicting whose disease would remain persistent than predicting those that would extend, Dr. Brescia said. CD14 was the most specific biomarker, and IL-6 was the most sensitive biomarker in both groups.
When the researchers translated the findings from ELISA to the Luminex platform, positive results in synovial fluid for all these biomarkers were also positive in serum samples. Although the differences between persistent and extended-to-be samples did not reach statistical significance using Luminex, the pattern was the same for each biomarker.
“Luminex is more sensitive than ELISA. We believe that conducting an LDA [linear discriminant analysis] using these Luminex measurements will allow us to determine new cutoffs or new protein levels that are appropriate for Luminex to predict who will extend,” Dr. Brescia said. “It’s also our goal to develop a serum panel because ... being able to detect these markers in serum would expand the applicability of these markers to more patients.”
Dr. Brescia then described the group’s work in defining clinically relevant subpopulations of patients based on fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS) cells in the synovial intimal lining that produce inflammatory cytokines.
“Our compelling, single-cell, RNA sequencing preliminary data revealing multiple subpopulations within the total FLS population supports our hypothesis that distinct FLS subpopulations correlate with clinical outcome,” said Dr. Brescia. They looked at the percentage of chondrocyte-like, fibroblast-like, and smooth muscle-like subpopulations in samples from patients with oligoarticular JIA, extended-to-be JIA, and polyarticular JIA. Chondrocytes occurred in the largest proportion, and polyarticular JIA FLS had the largest percentage of chondrocytes, compared with the other two subpopulation groups.
“This is a work in progress,” Dr. Brescia said, “so hopefully you’ll hear about it next year.” In response to an attendee’s question, she said she believes identifying reliable biomarkers will eventually lead to refining treatment paradigms.
“I think it will at least change the guidance we can provide parents about making next choices and how quickly to accelerate to those next choices,” Dr. Brescia said. For example, if a child’s serum or synovial fluid has markers that show a very high likelihood of extension, the parent may decide to proceed to the next level medication sooner. “I do think it will push both parents and doctors to be a little more proactive instead of reactive when the poor patient comes back with 13 joints involved when they had just been an oligo for years.”
Dr. Oliver noted the promise of CD14 and IL-6 in potentially predicting which patients’ disease will stay persistent but cautioned that it’s still early in evaluating these biomarkers, especially with the limited patient samples in this study.
“I think these results are promising, and it’s great that there are groups out there working on this,” Dr. Oliver said. “Once we have a reliable, highly sensitive and specific biomarker, that will definitely help providers, parents, and patients be more informed.”
The research was supported by the Open Net Foundation, the Arthritis Foundation, Delaware Community Foundation, the Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR) ACCEL Program, the Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, and CARRA. Dr. Brescia and Dr. Oliver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ongoing research in patients with oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) so far suggests that a set of biomarkers in synovial fluid may help to predict which patients may be more likely to stay with persistent oligoarticular disease rather than progress to polyarticular disease, according to new research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year. Identifying biomarkers in synovial fluid or possibly serum could aid families and physicians in being more proactive in treatment protocols, said AnneMarie C. Brescia, MD, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Del.
“JIA carries the risk of permanent joint damage and disability, which can result when joint involvement evolves from oligoarticular into a polyarticular course, termed extended oligoarticular disease,” Dr. Brescia told attendees. “Since disease progression increases the risk for disability, early prediction of this course is essential.”
This group – those whose oligoarticular disease will begin recruiting joints and ultimately become extended oligoarticular JIA – is “very important because they have been shown to have worse health-related quality of life and greater risk of needing a joint replacement than even polyarticular [JIA],” Dr. Brescia said. “So, our lab has really focused on trying to predict who will fall in this group.”
Melissa Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, was not involved in the study but agreed that having highly sensitive and specific biomarkers could be particularly helpful in clinical care.
“Biomarkers can help guide treatment decisions and help physicians and their patients share the decision-making about next choices and when to change,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization. “If a provider and parent know that their child has these markers in their serum or synovial fluid that may predict extension of their disease, then they may be more aggressive upfront with therapy.”
The study aimed to determine whether differential levels of synovial fluid proteins could be used to predict whether JIA would evolve into an extended course before it became clinically evident. Although early aggressive treatment is common with rheumatoid arthritis and can lead to remission, JIA treatment paradigms tend to be more reactive, Dr. Brescia said.
“It would be better to switch to proactive, that if we’re able to predict that this patient may have a more difficult course with extension to polyarticular, we could be prepared, we could inform the parents, and it would just help us have a more proactive approach,” she said.
The researchers used antibody arrays to detect the following inflammatory mediators in blinded samples: CD14, interleukin (IL)-1-alpha, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and angiogenin. They analyzed 37 samples with persistent disease and 32 samples from disease that had not yet extended but would become extended in that patient. The samples came from patients who were taking no medicines or only NSAIDs. The researchers assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. Sensitivity referred the biomarker’s ability to correctly indicate that the sample would extend, and specificity referred to the biomarker’s accuracy in determining that the disease in the sample would remain persistent.
Combining samples from cohorts at Nemours Children’s Health (14 persistent and 7 extended-to-be) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (23 persistent and 25 extended-to-be) yielded the following results:
The findings revealed that the selected biomarkers were more accurate at predicting whose disease would remain persistent than predicting those that would extend, Dr. Brescia said. CD14 was the most specific biomarker, and IL-6 was the most sensitive biomarker in both groups.
When the researchers translated the findings from ELISA to the Luminex platform, positive results in synovial fluid for all these biomarkers were also positive in serum samples. Although the differences between persistent and extended-to-be samples did not reach statistical significance using Luminex, the pattern was the same for each biomarker.
“Luminex is more sensitive than ELISA. We believe that conducting an LDA [linear discriminant analysis] using these Luminex measurements will allow us to determine new cutoffs or new protein levels that are appropriate for Luminex to predict who will extend,” Dr. Brescia said. “It’s also our goal to develop a serum panel because ... being able to detect these markers in serum would expand the applicability of these markers to more patients.”
Dr. Brescia then described the group’s work in defining clinically relevant subpopulations of patients based on fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS) cells in the synovial intimal lining that produce inflammatory cytokines.
“Our compelling, single-cell, RNA sequencing preliminary data revealing multiple subpopulations within the total FLS population supports our hypothesis that distinct FLS subpopulations correlate with clinical outcome,” said Dr. Brescia. They looked at the percentage of chondrocyte-like, fibroblast-like, and smooth muscle-like subpopulations in samples from patients with oligoarticular JIA, extended-to-be JIA, and polyarticular JIA. Chondrocytes occurred in the largest proportion, and polyarticular JIA FLS had the largest percentage of chondrocytes, compared with the other two subpopulation groups.
“This is a work in progress,” Dr. Brescia said, “so hopefully you’ll hear about it next year.” In response to an attendee’s question, she said she believes identifying reliable biomarkers will eventually lead to refining treatment paradigms.
“I think it will at least change the guidance we can provide parents about making next choices and how quickly to accelerate to those next choices,” Dr. Brescia said. For example, if a child’s serum or synovial fluid has markers that show a very high likelihood of extension, the parent may decide to proceed to the next level medication sooner. “I do think it will push both parents and doctors to be a little more proactive instead of reactive when the poor patient comes back with 13 joints involved when they had just been an oligo for years.”
Dr. Oliver noted the promise of CD14 and IL-6 in potentially predicting which patients’ disease will stay persistent but cautioned that it’s still early in evaluating these biomarkers, especially with the limited patient samples in this study.
“I think these results are promising, and it’s great that there are groups out there working on this,” Dr. Oliver said. “Once we have a reliable, highly sensitive and specific biomarker, that will definitely help providers, parents, and patients be more informed.”
The research was supported by the Open Net Foundation, the Arthritis Foundation, Delaware Community Foundation, the Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR) ACCEL Program, the Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, and CARRA. Dr. Brescia and Dr. Oliver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CARRA 2022
Monkeypox: What’s a pediatrician to do?
Not long ago, a pediatrician working in a local urgent care clinic called me about a teenage girl with a pruritic rash. She described vesicles and pustules located primarily on the face and arms with no surrounding cellulitis or other exam findings.
“She probably has impetigo,” my colleague said. “But I took a travel and exposure history and learned that her grandma had recently returned home from visiting family in the Congo. Do you think I need to worry about monkeypox?”
While most pediatricians in the United States have never seen a case of monkeypox, the virus is not new. An orthopox, it belongs to the same genus that includes smallpox and cowpox viruses. It was discovered in 1958 when two colonies of monkeys kept for research developed pox-like rashes. The earliest human case was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and now the virus is endemic in some counties in Central and West Africa.
Monkeypox virus is a zoonotic disease – it can spread from animals to people. Rodents and other small mammals – not monkeys – are thought to be the most likely reservoir. The virus typically spreads from person to person through close contact with skin or respiratory secretions or contact with contaminated fomites. Typical infection begins with fever, lymphadenopathy, and flulike symptoms that include headache and malaise. One to four days after the onset of fever, the characteristic rash begins as macular lesions that evolve into papules, then vesicles, and finally pustules. Pustular lesions are deep-seated, well circumscribed, and are usually the same size and in the same stage of development on a given body site. The rash often starts on the face or the mouth, and then moves to the extremities, including the palms and soles. Over time, the lesions umbilicate and ultimately crust over.
On May 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Advisory describing a case of monkeypox in a patient in Massachusetts. A single case normally wouldn’t cause too much alarm. In fact, there were two cases reported in the United States in 2021, both in travelers returning to the United States from Nigeria, a country in which the virus is endemic. No transmissions from these individuals to close contacts were identified.
The Massachusetts case was remarkable for two reasons. It occurred in an individual who had recently returned from a trip to Canada, which is not a country in which the virus is endemic. Additionally, it occurred in the context of a global outbreak of monkey pox that has, to date, disproportionately affected individuals who identify as men who have sex with men. Patients have often lacked the characteristic prodrome and many have had rash localized to the perianal and genital area, with or without symptoms of proctitis (anorectal pain, tenesmus, and bleeding). Clinically, some lesions mimicked sexually transmitted infections that the occur in the anogenital area, including herpes, syphilis, and lymphogranuloma venereum.
As of May 31, 2022, 17 persons in nine states had been diagnosed with presumed monkeypox virus infection. They ranged in age from 28 to 61 years and 16/17 identified as MSM. Fourteen reported international travel in the 3 weeks before developing symptoms. As of June 12, that number had grown to 53, while worldwide the number of confirmed and suspected cases reached 1,584. Up-to-date case counts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox.
Back on the phone, my colleague laughed a little nervously. “I guess I’m not really worried about monkeypox in my patient.” She paused and then asked, “This isn’t going to be the next pandemic, is it?”
Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have been reassuring in that regard. Two vaccines are available for the prevention of monkeypox. JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live viral vaccine licensed as a two-dose series to prevent both monkeypox and smallpox. ACAM 2000 is a live Vaccinia virus preparation licensed to prevent smallpox. These vaccines are effective when given before exposure but are thought to also beneficial when given as postexposure prophylaxis. According to the CDC, vaccination within 4 days of exposure can prevent the development of disease. Vaccination within 14 days of exposure may not prevent the development of disease but may lessen symptoms. Treatment is generally supportive but antiviral therapy could be considered for individuals with severe disease. Tecovirmat is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of smallpox but is available under nonresearch Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol for the treatment of children and adults with severe orthopox infections, including monkeypox.
So, what’s a pediatrician to do? Take a good travel history, as my colleague did, because that is good medicine. At this point in an outbreak though, a lack of travel does not exclude the diagnosis. Perform a thorough exam of skin and mucosal areas. When there are rashes in the genital or perianal area, consider the possibility of monkeypox in addition to typical sexually transmitted infections. Ask about exposure to other persons with similar rashes, as well as close or intimate contact with a persons in a social network experiencing monkeypox infections. This includes MSM who meet partners through an online website, app, or at social events. Monkeypox can also be spread through contact with an animal (dead or alive) that is an African endemic species or use of a product derived from such animals. Public health experts encourage clinicians to be alert for rash illnesses consistent with monkeypox, regardless of a patient’s gender or sexual orientation, history of international travel, or specific risk factors.
Pediatricians see many kids with rashes, and while cases of monkeypox climb daily, the disease is still very rare. Given the media coverage of the outbreak, pediatricians should be prepared for questions from patients and their parents. Clinicians who suspect a case of monkeypox should contact their local or state health department for guidance and the need for testing. Tips for recognizing monkeypox and distinguishing it from more common viral illnesses such as chicken pox are available at www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Not long ago, a pediatrician working in a local urgent care clinic called me about a teenage girl with a pruritic rash. She described vesicles and pustules located primarily on the face and arms with no surrounding cellulitis or other exam findings.
“She probably has impetigo,” my colleague said. “But I took a travel and exposure history and learned that her grandma had recently returned home from visiting family in the Congo. Do you think I need to worry about monkeypox?”
While most pediatricians in the United States have never seen a case of monkeypox, the virus is not new. An orthopox, it belongs to the same genus that includes smallpox and cowpox viruses. It was discovered in 1958 when two colonies of monkeys kept for research developed pox-like rashes. The earliest human case was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and now the virus is endemic in some counties in Central and West Africa.
Monkeypox virus is a zoonotic disease – it can spread from animals to people. Rodents and other small mammals – not monkeys – are thought to be the most likely reservoir. The virus typically spreads from person to person through close contact with skin or respiratory secretions or contact with contaminated fomites. Typical infection begins with fever, lymphadenopathy, and flulike symptoms that include headache and malaise. One to four days after the onset of fever, the characteristic rash begins as macular lesions that evolve into papules, then vesicles, and finally pustules. Pustular lesions are deep-seated, well circumscribed, and are usually the same size and in the same stage of development on a given body site. The rash often starts on the face or the mouth, and then moves to the extremities, including the palms and soles. Over time, the lesions umbilicate and ultimately crust over.
On May 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Advisory describing a case of monkeypox in a patient in Massachusetts. A single case normally wouldn’t cause too much alarm. In fact, there were two cases reported in the United States in 2021, both in travelers returning to the United States from Nigeria, a country in which the virus is endemic. No transmissions from these individuals to close contacts were identified.
The Massachusetts case was remarkable for two reasons. It occurred in an individual who had recently returned from a trip to Canada, which is not a country in which the virus is endemic. Additionally, it occurred in the context of a global outbreak of monkey pox that has, to date, disproportionately affected individuals who identify as men who have sex with men. Patients have often lacked the characteristic prodrome and many have had rash localized to the perianal and genital area, with or without symptoms of proctitis (anorectal pain, tenesmus, and bleeding). Clinically, some lesions mimicked sexually transmitted infections that the occur in the anogenital area, including herpes, syphilis, and lymphogranuloma venereum.
As of May 31, 2022, 17 persons in nine states had been diagnosed with presumed monkeypox virus infection. They ranged in age from 28 to 61 years and 16/17 identified as MSM. Fourteen reported international travel in the 3 weeks before developing symptoms. As of June 12, that number had grown to 53, while worldwide the number of confirmed and suspected cases reached 1,584. Up-to-date case counts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox.
Back on the phone, my colleague laughed a little nervously. “I guess I’m not really worried about monkeypox in my patient.” She paused and then asked, “This isn’t going to be the next pandemic, is it?”
Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have been reassuring in that regard. Two vaccines are available for the prevention of monkeypox. JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live viral vaccine licensed as a two-dose series to prevent both monkeypox and smallpox. ACAM 2000 is a live Vaccinia virus preparation licensed to prevent smallpox. These vaccines are effective when given before exposure but are thought to also beneficial when given as postexposure prophylaxis. According to the CDC, vaccination within 4 days of exposure can prevent the development of disease. Vaccination within 14 days of exposure may not prevent the development of disease but may lessen symptoms. Treatment is generally supportive but antiviral therapy could be considered for individuals with severe disease. Tecovirmat is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of smallpox but is available under nonresearch Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol for the treatment of children and adults with severe orthopox infections, including monkeypox.
So, what’s a pediatrician to do? Take a good travel history, as my colleague did, because that is good medicine. At this point in an outbreak though, a lack of travel does not exclude the diagnosis. Perform a thorough exam of skin and mucosal areas. When there are rashes in the genital or perianal area, consider the possibility of monkeypox in addition to typical sexually transmitted infections. Ask about exposure to other persons with similar rashes, as well as close or intimate contact with a persons in a social network experiencing monkeypox infections. This includes MSM who meet partners through an online website, app, or at social events. Monkeypox can also be spread through contact with an animal (dead or alive) that is an African endemic species or use of a product derived from such animals. Public health experts encourage clinicians to be alert for rash illnesses consistent with monkeypox, regardless of a patient’s gender or sexual orientation, history of international travel, or specific risk factors.
Pediatricians see many kids with rashes, and while cases of monkeypox climb daily, the disease is still very rare. Given the media coverage of the outbreak, pediatricians should be prepared for questions from patients and their parents. Clinicians who suspect a case of monkeypox should contact their local or state health department for guidance and the need for testing. Tips for recognizing monkeypox and distinguishing it from more common viral illnesses such as chicken pox are available at www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Not long ago, a pediatrician working in a local urgent care clinic called me about a teenage girl with a pruritic rash. She described vesicles and pustules located primarily on the face and arms with no surrounding cellulitis or other exam findings.
“She probably has impetigo,” my colleague said. “But I took a travel and exposure history and learned that her grandma had recently returned home from visiting family in the Congo. Do you think I need to worry about monkeypox?”
While most pediatricians in the United States have never seen a case of monkeypox, the virus is not new. An orthopox, it belongs to the same genus that includes smallpox and cowpox viruses. It was discovered in 1958 when two colonies of monkeys kept for research developed pox-like rashes. The earliest human case was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and now the virus is endemic in some counties in Central and West Africa.
Monkeypox virus is a zoonotic disease – it can spread from animals to people. Rodents and other small mammals – not monkeys – are thought to be the most likely reservoir. The virus typically spreads from person to person through close contact with skin or respiratory secretions or contact with contaminated fomites. Typical infection begins with fever, lymphadenopathy, and flulike symptoms that include headache and malaise. One to four days after the onset of fever, the characteristic rash begins as macular lesions that evolve into papules, then vesicles, and finally pustules. Pustular lesions are deep-seated, well circumscribed, and are usually the same size and in the same stage of development on a given body site. The rash often starts on the face or the mouth, and then moves to the extremities, including the palms and soles. Over time, the lesions umbilicate and ultimately crust over.
On May 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Advisory describing a case of monkeypox in a patient in Massachusetts. A single case normally wouldn’t cause too much alarm. In fact, there were two cases reported in the United States in 2021, both in travelers returning to the United States from Nigeria, a country in which the virus is endemic. No transmissions from these individuals to close contacts were identified.
The Massachusetts case was remarkable for two reasons. It occurred in an individual who had recently returned from a trip to Canada, which is not a country in which the virus is endemic. Additionally, it occurred in the context of a global outbreak of monkey pox that has, to date, disproportionately affected individuals who identify as men who have sex with men. Patients have often lacked the characteristic prodrome and many have had rash localized to the perianal and genital area, with or without symptoms of proctitis (anorectal pain, tenesmus, and bleeding). Clinically, some lesions mimicked sexually transmitted infections that the occur in the anogenital area, including herpes, syphilis, and lymphogranuloma venereum.
As of May 31, 2022, 17 persons in nine states had been diagnosed with presumed monkeypox virus infection. They ranged in age from 28 to 61 years and 16/17 identified as MSM. Fourteen reported international travel in the 3 weeks before developing symptoms. As of June 12, that number had grown to 53, while worldwide the number of confirmed and suspected cases reached 1,584. Up-to-date case counts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox.
Back on the phone, my colleague laughed a little nervously. “I guess I’m not really worried about monkeypox in my patient.” She paused and then asked, “This isn’t going to be the next pandemic, is it?”
Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have been reassuring in that regard. Two vaccines are available for the prevention of monkeypox. JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live viral vaccine licensed as a two-dose series to prevent both monkeypox and smallpox. ACAM 2000 is a live Vaccinia virus preparation licensed to prevent smallpox. These vaccines are effective when given before exposure but are thought to also beneficial when given as postexposure prophylaxis. According to the CDC, vaccination within 4 days of exposure can prevent the development of disease. Vaccination within 14 days of exposure may not prevent the development of disease but may lessen symptoms. Treatment is generally supportive but antiviral therapy could be considered for individuals with severe disease. Tecovirmat is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of smallpox but is available under nonresearch Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol for the treatment of children and adults with severe orthopox infections, including monkeypox.
So, what’s a pediatrician to do? Take a good travel history, as my colleague did, because that is good medicine. At this point in an outbreak though, a lack of travel does not exclude the diagnosis. Perform a thorough exam of skin and mucosal areas. When there are rashes in the genital or perianal area, consider the possibility of monkeypox in addition to typical sexually transmitted infections. Ask about exposure to other persons with similar rashes, as well as close or intimate contact with a persons in a social network experiencing monkeypox infections. This includes MSM who meet partners through an online website, app, or at social events. Monkeypox can also be spread through contact with an animal (dead or alive) that is an African endemic species or use of a product derived from such animals. Public health experts encourage clinicians to be alert for rash illnesses consistent with monkeypox, regardless of a patient’s gender or sexual orientation, history of international travel, or specific risk factors.
Pediatricians see many kids with rashes, and while cases of monkeypox climb daily, the disease is still very rare. Given the media coverage of the outbreak, pediatricians should be prepared for questions from patients and their parents. Clinicians who suspect a case of monkeypox should contact their local or state health department for guidance and the need for testing. Tips for recognizing monkeypox and distinguishing it from more common viral illnesses such as chicken pox are available at www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Updated pediatric uveitis recommendations advise on expanded treatment options
Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).
The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.
One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.
“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.
These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.
The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.
Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.
“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”
The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.
The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.
“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”
The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.
“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”
Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.
“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”
These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.
“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”
The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.
Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.
“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”
Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.
“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.
She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.
In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).
The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.
One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.
“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.
These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.
The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.
Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.
“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”
The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.
The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.
“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”
The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.
“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”
Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.
“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”
These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.
“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”
The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.
Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.
“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”
Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.
“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.
She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.
In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).
The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.
One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.
“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.
These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.
The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.
Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.
“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”
The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.
The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.
“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”
The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.
“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”
Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.
“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”
These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.
“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”
The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.
Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.
“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”
Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.
“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.
She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.
In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE RESEARCH