Dermatology News

Dupilumab treatment with concomitant topical corticosteroids provided rapid and sustained improvement in itch intensity and frequency in children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis.

The findings come from a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 trial known as LIBERTY AD PEDS (NCT03345914) that Gil Yosipovitch, MD, presented during a late-breaking research session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium.

By week 16, a higher weekly proportion of dupilumab-treated patients achieved a 2-point or more improvement in worst itch score, compared with placebo (72% in the 300-mg q4w group vs. 74% in the 200-mg q2w group; P less than or equal to .001). The same association held true for the daily proportion of dupilumab-treated patients who achieved a 4-point or more improvement in worst itch score, compared with placebo (54% vs. 61%; P less than or equal to .001).

Next, the researchers evaluated the proportion of patients reporting the number of days with itchy skin over the previous 7 days as assessed from the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) itch item question: “Over the last week, on how many days has your child’s skin been itchy because of their eczema?” By week 16, the majority of children treated with dupilumab achieved a reduction of days experiencing itch from every day at baseline to at most 2 days, with some improvement to zero days per week.

“Overall, in the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, dupilumab was well tolerated and data were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile observed in adults and adolescents,” Dr. Yosipovitch said. “Injection site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common with dupilumab. Infections and AD exacerbations were more common with placebo.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch and coauthors reporting having received financial grants and research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Dupilumab treatment with concomitant topical corticosteroids provided rapid and sustained improvement in itch intensity and frequency in children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis.

The findings come from a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 trial known as LIBERTY AD PEDS (NCT03345914) that Gil Yosipovitch, MD, presented during a late-breaking research session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium.

By week 16, a higher weekly proportion of dupilumab-treated patients achieved a 2-point or more improvement in worst itch score, compared with placebo (72% in the 300-mg q4w group vs. 74% in the 200-mg q2w group; P less than or equal to .001). The same association held true for the daily proportion of dupilumab-treated patients who achieved a 4-point or more improvement in worst itch score, compared with placebo (54% vs. 61%; P less than or equal to .001).

Next, the researchers evaluated the proportion of patients reporting the number of days with itchy skin over the previous 7 days as assessed from the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) itch item question: “Over the last week, on how many days has your child’s skin been itchy because of their eczema?” By week 16, the majority of children treated with dupilumab achieved a reduction of days experiencing itch from every day at baseline to at most 2 days, with some improvement to zero days per week.

“Overall, in the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, dupilumab was well tolerated and data were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile observed in adults and adolescents,” Dr. Yosipovitch said. “Injection site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common with dupilumab. Infections and AD exacerbations were more common with placebo.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch and coauthors reporting having received financial grants and research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Dupilumab treatment with concomitant topical corticosteroids provided rapid and sustained improvement in itch intensity and frequency in children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis.

The findings come from a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 trial known as LIBERTY AD PEDS (NCT03345914) that Gil Yosipovitch, MD, presented during a late-breaking research session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium.

By week 16, a higher weekly proportion of dupilumab-treated patients achieved a 2-point or more improvement in worst itch score, compared with placebo (72% in the 300-mg q4w group vs. 74% in the 200-mg q2w group; P less than or equal to .001). The same association held true for the daily proportion of dupilumab-treated patients who achieved a 4-point or more improvement in worst itch score, compared with placebo (54% vs. 61%; P less than or equal to .001).

Next, the researchers evaluated the proportion of patients reporting the number of days with itchy skin over the previous 7 days as assessed from the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) itch item question: “Over the last week, on how many days has your child’s skin been itchy because of their eczema?” By week 16, the majority of children treated with dupilumab achieved a reduction of days experiencing itch from every day at baseline to at most 2 days, with some improvement to zero days per week.

“Overall, in the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, dupilumab was well tolerated and data were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile observed in adults and adolescents,” Dr. Yosipovitch said. “Injection site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common with dupilumab. Infections and AD exacerbations were more common with placebo.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch and coauthors reporting having received financial grants and research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Saliva spit tests stack up well against the gold standard for molecular COVID-19 tests – the back-of-the-nose deep swab – without the discomfort and induced coughing or sneezing of the test taker, updated guidelines indicate.

In a press briefing on Jan. 6, the Infectious Diseases Society of America explained the findings of an expert panel that reviewed the literature since the IDSA released its first guidelines in May.

The panel found that saliva tests were especially effective if the test included instructions to cough or clear the throat before spitting into the tube, said panel chair Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, MHS, of University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City.
 

Throat swab alone less effective

Using a throat swab alone was less effective and missed more cases than the other methods, she said.

The IDSA has updated its recommendation: A saliva test or swabs from either the middle or front of the nose front are preferred to a throat swab alone.

A combination of saliva and swabs from the front and middle of the nose and throat together “looked pretty much equivalent” to the gold-standard deep swab, the panel found.

She acknowledged, however, that multiple swabs exacerbate already challenging supply issues.

Saliva samples do come with challenges, Dr. Hanson noted. A laboratory must validate that its systems can handle the stickier material. And asking a patient to cough necessitates more personal protective equipment for the health care professional.

Each center will have to tailor the specimen type it chooses, based on what resources it has available and the setting – whether in a hospital or a drive-through operation, for instance, she said.
 

Rapid testing vs. standard

Panel member Angela M. Caliendo, MD, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the panel preferred rapid polymerase chain reaction tests and standard, laboratory-based PCR tests over a rapid isothermal test.

The panel defined rapid tests as those for which results are available within an hour after a test provider has the specimen in hand. They excluded home tests for this category.

The only rapid isothermal test that had enough data on which to issue a recommendation was the ID NOW test (Abbott Labs), she noted. 

Rapid PCR tests performed just as well as the standard laboratory-based tests, she said, with a high sensitivity of “97% on average and a very high specificity.”

But the rapid isothermal test had an average sensitivity of only about 80%, compared with the lab-based PCR test, Dr. Caliendo said, yielding a substantial number of false-negative results.

Testing centers will have to weigh the considerable advantages of having results in 15 minutes with a rapid isothermal test and being able to educate positive patients about immediate isolation against the potential for false negatives, which could send positive patients home thinking they don’t have the virus – and thus potentially spreading the disease.

And if a clinician gets a negative result with the rapid isothermal test, but has a strong suspicion the person has COVID or lives in an area with high prevalence, a backup test with a rapid PCR or laboratory-based test should be administered.

“You will miss a certain percentage of people using this rapid isothermal test,” she said.

However, Dr. Caliendo said, if the only available option is the isothermal test, “you should definitely use it because it’s certainly better than not testing at all.”

On a positive note, she said, all the varieties of tests have high specificity, so “you’re not going to see a lot of false-positive results.”

The guidelines back in May didn’t make recommendations on rapid tests, she said, because there weren’t enough data in the literature.

Dr. Caliendo noted that most of the available data were for symptomatic patients, but there are some data that show the amount of virus in the respiratory tract is similar for people with and without symptoms. The panel, therefore, expects that the performance of the various assays would be similar whether or not a person had symptoms.
 

Testing the immunocompromised

Dr. Hanson said the original recommendation in May was to do molecular testing for asymptomatic people who were awaiting a transplant or were waiting to start immunosuppressive therapy for cancer or an autoimmune disease. Now the current guidelines “make no recommendation for or against screening” in those cases.

Dr. Hanson added that the panel feels that patients awaiting bone marrow and solid organ transplants should have the testing because of the high risks that will result if patients have contracted the virus.

But for those with cancer or an autoimmune disease, the panel decided to leave it up to each physician to assess individual risk and determine whether the patient should be tested.
 

Home testing

The IDSA guidelines didn’t weigh in on home testing because the products are so new and studies so far have included fewer than 200 patients. But Dr. Caliendo said they clearly perform better earlier in the disease phase – the first 5-7 days – when the amount of the virus is higher.

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo also fielded a question about what the new virus variant, first discovered in the United Kingdom and now spreading to other countries (including the United States) means for diagnostic testing.

“So far we think with the majority of tests that are [emergency use] authorized, it doesn’t look like this new variant should really affect test performance,” Dr. Hanson said.

The variant has differences in the spike gene, and many of the current tests detect and identify SARS-CoV-2 without the spike gene so they wouldn’t be affected, she added.

Dr. Caliendo agreed: “I think the vast majority of our tests should be in good shape.”

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Saliva spit tests stack up well against the gold standard for molecular COVID-19 tests – the back-of-the-nose deep swab – without the discomfort and induced coughing or sneezing of the test taker, updated guidelines indicate.

In a press briefing on Jan. 6, the Infectious Diseases Society of America explained the findings of an expert panel that reviewed the literature since the IDSA released its first guidelines in May.

The panel found that saliva tests were especially effective if the test included instructions to cough or clear the throat before spitting into the tube, said panel chair Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, MHS, of University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City.
 

Throat swab alone less effective

Using a throat swab alone was less effective and missed more cases than the other methods, she said.

The IDSA has updated its recommendation: A saliva test or swabs from either the middle or front of the nose front are preferred to a throat swab alone.

A combination of saliva and swabs from the front and middle of the nose and throat together “looked pretty much equivalent” to the gold-standard deep swab, the panel found.

She acknowledged, however, that multiple swabs exacerbate already challenging supply issues.

Saliva samples do come with challenges, Dr. Hanson noted. A laboratory must validate that its systems can handle the stickier material. And asking a patient to cough necessitates more personal protective equipment for the health care professional.

Each center will have to tailor the specimen type it chooses, based on what resources it has available and the setting – whether in a hospital or a drive-through operation, for instance, she said.
 

Rapid testing vs. standard

Panel member Angela M. Caliendo, MD, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the panel preferred rapid polymerase chain reaction tests and standard, laboratory-based PCR tests over a rapid isothermal test.

The panel defined rapid tests as those for which results are available within an hour after a test provider has the specimen in hand. They excluded home tests for this category.

The only rapid isothermal test that had enough data on which to issue a recommendation was the ID NOW test (Abbott Labs), she noted. 

Rapid PCR tests performed just as well as the standard laboratory-based tests, she said, with a high sensitivity of “97% on average and a very high specificity.”

But the rapid isothermal test had an average sensitivity of only about 80%, compared with the lab-based PCR test, Dr. Caliendo said, yielding a substantial number of false-negative results.

Testing centers will have to weigh the considerable advantages of having results in 15 minutes with a rapid isothermal test and being able to educate positive patients about immediate isolation against the potential for false negatives, which could send positive patients home thinking they don’t have the virus – and thus potentially spreading the disease.

And if a clinician gets a negative result with the rapid isothermal test, but has a strong suspicion the person has COVID or lives in an area with high prevalence, a backup test with a rapid PCR or laboratory-based test should be administered.

“You will miss a certain percentage of people using this rapid isothermal test,” she said.

However, Dr. Caliendo said, if the only available option is the isothermal test, “you should definitely use it because it’s certainly better than not testing at all.”

On a positive note, she said, all the varieties of tests have high specificity, so “you’re not going to see a lot of false-positive results.”

The guidelines back in May didn’t make recommendations on rapid tests, she said, because there weren’t enough data in the literature.

Dr. Caliendo noted that most of the available data were for symptomatic patients, but there are some data that show the amount of virus in the respiratory tract is similar for people with and without symptoms. The panel, therefore, expects that the performance of the various assays would be similar whether or not a person had symptoms.
 

Testing the immunocompromised

Dr. Hanson said the original recommendation in May was to do molecular testing for asymptomatic people who were awaiting a transplant or were waiting to start immunosuppressive therapy for cancer or an autoimmune disease. Now the current guidelines “make no recommendation for or against screening” in those cases.

Dr. Hanson added that the panel feels that patients awaiting bone marrow and solid organ transplants should have the testing because of the high risks that will result if patients have contracted the virus.

But for those with cancer or an autoimmune disease, the panel decided to leave it up to each physician to assess individual risk and determine whether the patient should be tested.
 

Home testing

The IDSA guidelines didn’t weigh in on home testing because the products are so new and studies so far have included fewer than 200 patients. But Dr. Caliendo said they clearly perform better earlier in the disease phase – the first 5-7 days – when the amount of the virus is higher.

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo also fielded a question about what the new virus variant, first discovered in the United Kingdom and now spreading to other countries (including the United States) means for diagnostic testing.

“So far we think with the majority of tests that are [emergency use] authorized, it doesn’t look like this new variant should really affect test performance,” Dr. Hanson said.

The variant has differences in the spike gene, and many of the current tests detect and identify SARS-CoV-2 without the spike gene so they wouldn’t be affected, she added.

Dr. Caliendo agreed: “I think the vast majority of our tests should be in good shape.”

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Saliva spit tests stack up well against the gold standard for molecular COVID-19 tests – the back-of-the-nose deep swab – without the discomfort and induced coughing or sneezing of the test taker, updated guidelines indicate.

In a press briefing on Jan. 6, the Infectious Diseases Society of America explained the findings of an expert panel that reviewed the literature since the IDSA released its first guidelines in May.

The panel found that saliva tests were especially effective if the test included instructions to cough or clear the throat before spitting into the tube, said panel chair Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, MHS, of University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City.
 

Throat swab alone less effective

Using a throat swab alone was less effective and missed more cases than the other methods, she said.

The IDSA has updated its recommendation: A saliva test or swabs from either the middle or front of the nose front are preferred to a throat swab alone.

A combination of saliva and swabs from the front and middle of the nose and throat together “looked pretty much equivalent” to the gold-standard deep swab, the panel found.

She acknowledged, however, that multiple swabs exacerbate already challenging supply issues.

Saliva samples do come with challenges, Dr. Hanson noted. A laboratory must validate that its systems can handle the stickier material. And asking a patient to cough necessitates more personal protective equipment for the health care professional.

Each center will have to tailor the specimen type it chooses, based on what resources it has available and the setting – whether in a hospital or a drive-through operation, for instance, she said.
 

Rapid testing vs. standard

Panel member Angela M. Caliendo, MD, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the panel preferred rapid polymerase chain reaction tests and standard, laboratory-based PCR tests over a rapid isothermal test.

The panel defined rapid tests as those for which results are available within an hour after a test provider has the specimen in hand. They excluded home tests for this category.

The only rapid isothermal test that had enough data on which to issue a recommendation was the ID NOW test (Abbott Labs), she noted. 

Rapid PCR tests performed just as well as the standard laboratory-based tests, she said, with a high sensitivity of “97% on average and a very high specificity.”

But the rapid isothermal test had an average sensitivity of only about 80%, compared with the lab-based PCR test, Dr. Caliendo said, yielding a substantial number of false-negative results.

Testing centers will have to weigh the considerable advantages of having results in 15 minutes with a rapid isothermal test and being able to educate positive patients about immediate isolation against the potential for false negatives, which could send positive patients home thinking they don’t have the virus – and thus potentially spreading the disease.

And if a clinician gets a negative result with the rapid isothermal test, but has a strong suspicion the person has COVID or lives in an area with high prevalence, a backup test with a rapid PCR or laboratory-based test should be administered.

“You will miss a certain percentage of people using this rapid isothermal test,” she said.

However, Dr. Caliendo said, if the only available option is the isothermal test, “you should definitely use it because it’s certainly better than not testing at all.”

On a positive note, she said, all the varieties of tests have high specificity, so “you’re not going to see a lot of false-positive results.”

The guidelines back in May didn’t make recommendations on rapid tests, she said, because there weren’t enough data in the literature.

Dr. Caliendo noted that most of the available data were for symptomatic patients, but there are some data that show the amount of virus in the respiratory tract is similar for people with and without symptoms. The panel, therefore, expects that the performance of the various assays would be similar whether or not a person had symptoms.
 

Testing the immunocompromised

Dr. Hanson said the original recommendation in May was to do molecular testing for asymptomatic people who were awaiting a transplant or were waiting to start immunosuppressive therapy for cancer or an autoimmune disease. Now the current guidelines “make no recommendation for or against screening” in those cases.

Dr. Hanson added that the panel feels that patients awaiting bone marrow and solid organ transplants should have the testing because of the high risks that will result if patients have contracted the virus.

But for those with cancer or an autoimmune disease, the panel decided to leave it up to each physician to assess individual risk and determine whether the patient should be tested.
 

Home testing

The IDSA guidelines didn’t weigh in on home testing because the products are so new and studies so far have included fewer than 200 patients. But Dr. Caliendo said they clearly perform better earlier in the disease phase – the first 5-7 days – when the amount of the virus is higher.

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo also fielded a question about what the new virus variant, first discovered in the United Kingdom and now spreading to other countries (including the United States) means for diagnostic testing.

“So far we think with the majority of tests that are [emergency use] authorized, it doesn’t look like this new variant should really affect test performance,” Dr. Hanson said.

The variant has differences in the spike gene, and many of the current tests detect and identify SARS-CoV-2 without the spike gene so they wouldn’t be affected, she added.

Dr. Caliendo agreed: “I think the vast majority of our tests should be in good shape.”

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic leg ulcers of all types feature a significant inflammatory component for which medical compression therapy is absolutely the best form of anti-inflammatory therapy, Elena Conde Montero, MD, PhD, asserted at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In addition to delving into the finer points of compression therapy, she offered other clinical pearls for the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. These included the use of autologous punch grafting to reduce pain as well as promote healing, when to employ adjunctive negative pressure therapy, and the benefits of liquid sevoflurane for highly effective topical analgesia during wound cleansing and debridement.
 

Compression therapy

“If no contraindications exist, compression therapy is the best antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory treatment for all leg ulcers, not only venous leg ulcers,” according to Dr. Conde, a dermatologist at Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid.

The list of absolute contraindications to compression treatment is brief, as highlighted in a recent international consensus statement. The expert writing panel named only four: severe peripheral artery disease, the presence of an epifascial arterial bypass, severe cardiac insufficiency, and true allergy to compression material.

Compression therapy provides multiple salutary effects. These include reduced capillary filtration of fluids to tissue, decreased swelling, enhanced tissue remodeling, better lymphatic drainage, reduced inflammatory cell counts, and increased arterial flow.

“This means that people with mild arterial disease will benefit from active compression because perfusion will improve,” Dr. Conde said.

Similarly, leg ulcers secondary to pyoderma gangrenosum will benefit from the anti-inflammatory effects of compression therapy in conjunction with standard immunotherapy, added the dermatologist, who coauthored a recent publication by the European Wound Management Association entitled “Atypical Wounds: Best Clinical Practices and Challenges.”

Four broad types of compression therapy are available: compression stockings, short-stretch bandages, multicomponent bandage systems, and self-adjusting compression wrap devices. The best clinical outcomes are achieved by individualized selection of a compression method based upon patient characteristics.

Short-stretch, low-elasticity bandages – such as the classic Unna boot loaded with zinc paste and topical corticosteroids – are well suited for patients with large leg ulcers. These bandages feature high working pressures during muscle contraction. They also provide low resting pressures, which is advantageous in patients with peripheral artery disease. The major disadvantage of short-stretch bandages is the need for frequent dressing changes by a nurse or other trained professional, since the compression is quickly lost as an unwanted consequence of the welcome reduction in swelling.

Multicomponent bandage systems feature two to four layers of bandages of differing stiffness, as well as padding material and in many cases pressure indicators. These bandages can often be worn for up to a week without needing to be changed, since they maintain adequate pressure long term. “These are very easy to use by nonexperts,” Dr. Conde noted.

A caveat regarding both short-stretch bandages and the multicomponent bandage systems: before applying them, it’s important to pad at-risk areas against injury caused by high pressures. These high-risk areas include the Achilles tendon, the pretibial region, and the lateral foot.

Self-adjusting compression systems are comprised of strips of short-stretch, low-elasticity fabric, which wrap around the leg and are fixed with Velcro closures. Dr. Conde hailed these devices as “a great innovation in compression therapy, without doubt.” Their major advantage is ease of application and removal by the patient. They are best-suited for treatment of small ulcers in patients who find it difficult to use compression stockings because of obesity or osteoarthritis, in patients who can’t tolerate such stockings because they have peripheral artery disease and the stockings’ high resting pressure is uncomfortable, or in individuals ill-suited for compression bandages because they lack adequate access to nursing care for the required frequent dressing changes.

Compression stockings are a good option for small ulcers. It’s easier for patients to wear shoes with compression stockings and thereby engage in normal everyday activities than with short-stretch bandages. A tip: Many patients find it arduous to don and remove a high-compression stocking that achieves the recommended pressure of 30-40 mm Hg at the point of transition between the Achilles tendon and the calf muscle, but the same effect can be achieved by overlapping two easier-to-use lower-compression stockings.

Punch grafting

This simple, cost-effective outpatient procedure was first described as a means of enhancing wound healing 150 years ago. The method involves utilizing a scalpel, curette, or punch to obtain a series of thin split-thickness skin grafts that contain epidermis and dermis down to the superficial papillary dermis. The grafts, usually harvested from the anterior thigh, are placed on the wound. This is followed by at least 5 days of local pressure and rest to promote graft uptake.

Sequential punch grafting is an excellent option for particularly challenging chronic ulcers, including Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers and other arteriolopathic ulcers in the elderly.

“Sequential punch grafting of wounds is very common in our clinics, especially for wounds that lack perfect grafting conditions,” Dr. Conde said.

She considers Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The Martorell leg ulcer is an exceedingly painful, rapidly progressive ischemic lesion, or bilateral lesions, with inflamed irregular margins. The disorder is caused by obstruction of subcutaneous arterioles in the absence of signs of vasculitis, and generally occurs in older individuals who have had well-controlled hypertension for many years. Diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and peripheral artery disease are common comorbid conditions. The most common form of treatment – bioactive dressings in a moist environment – produces unsatisfactory results because it doesn’t address the inflammatory process.

Dr. Conde and coworkers have published the full details of how they achieved complete healing of Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers 3-8 weeks after punch grafting in three affected patients, all of whom presented with pain scores of 10/10 refractory even to opioid analgesics. The punch grafting was preceded by 15 days of topical corticosteroids and low-elasticity compression bandages in order to create adequate granulation tissue in the wound bed, which had the added benefit of achieving a 2- to 3-point reduction in pain scores even before the surgical procedure.

The pain-reducing effect of punch grafting isn’t as well appreciated as the wound-healing effect. Dr. Conde was first author of a recent study in which investigators systematically measured pain reduction in 136 patients with hard-to-heal leg ulcers of various etiologies treated with punch grafting. Nearly three-quarters of those who presented with painful ulcers were pain free after punch grafting, and the rest experienced greater than 70% pain reduction.

Pain suppression wasn’t dependent upon the percentage of graft uptake in this study. That’s because, as long as the wound isn’t overcleaned during dressing changes, even grafts that haven’t attached to the wound will release growth factors that promote wound healing, Dr. Conde explained.
 

Adjunctive negative pressure therapy

Portable vacuum-based negative pressure therapy devices are easy to use as a means to promote punch graft uptake. Negative pressure is best employed as an adjunct to punch grafting in suboptimal wound beds, longstanding ulcers, in patients with previous graft failure, or in challenging anatomic locations, such as the Achilles tendon or ankle. Dr. Conde has found the combination of punch grafting and negative pressure therapy especially helpful in patients with clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum.

Topical sevoflurane for analgesia

Most of the literature on topical sevoflurane for ulcer care has been published by Spanish researchers, but this form of analgesia deserves much more widespread use, according to Dr. Conde.

Sevoflurane is most often used as a gas in general anesthesia. In liquid form, however, it not only has a rapid, long-lasting analgesic effect when applied to painful leg ulcers, it also promotes healing because it is both antibacterial and a vasodilator. So before performing a potentially painful ulcer or wound cleaning, Dr. Conde recommended protecting perilesional skin with petroleum jelly, then irrigating the ulcer site with liquid sevoflurane. After that, it’s advisable to wait just 5-10 minutes before proceeding.

“It takes effect in much less time than EMLA cream,” she noted.

In one study of 30 adults aged over age 65 years with painful chronic venous ulcers refractory to conventional analgesics who underwent ulcer cleaning supported by topical sevoflurane at a dose of roughly 1 mL/cm² of ulcer area every 2 days for a month, Spanish investigators documented onset of analgesic effect in 2-7 minutes, with a duration of 8-18 hours. The researchers found that the use of backup conventional analgesics ranging from acetaminophen to opioids was diminished. Side effects were limited to mild, transient itching and redness.

Dr. Conde reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Chronic leg ulcers of all types feature a significant inflammatory component for which medical compression therapy is absolutely the best form of anti-inflammatory therapy, Elena Conde Montero, MD, PhD, asserted at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In addition to delving into the finer points of compression therapy, she offered other clinical pearls for the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. These included the use of autologous punch grafting to reduce pain as well as promote healing, when to employ adjunctive negative pressure therapy, and the benefits of liquid sevoflurane for highly effective topical analgesia during wound cleansing and debridement.
 

Compression therapy

“If no contraindications exist, compression therapy is the best antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory treatment for all leg ulcers, not only venous leg ulcers,” according to Dr. Conde, a dermatologist at Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid.

The list of absolute contraindications to compression treatment is brief, as highlighted in a recent international consensus statement. The expert writing panel named only four: severe peripheral artery disease, the presence of an epifascial arterial bypass, severe cardiac insufficiency, and true allergy to compression material.

Compression therapy provides multiple salutary effects. These include reduced capillary filtration of fluids to tissue, decreased swelling, enhanced tissue remodeling, better lymphatic drainage, reduced inflammatory cell counts, and increased arterial flow.

“This means that people with mild arterial disease will benefit from active compression because perfusion will improve,” Dr. Conde said.

Similarly, leg ulcers secondary to pyoderma gangrenosum will benefit from the anti-inflammatory effects of compression therapy in conjunction with standard immunotherapy, added the dermatologist, who coauthored a recent publication by the European Wound Management Association entitled “Atypical Wounds: Best Clinical Practices and Challenges.”

Four broad types of compression therapy are available: compression stockings, short-stretch bandages, multicomponent bandage systems, and self-adjusting compression wrap devices. The best clinical outcomes are achieved by individualized selection of a compression method based upon patient characteristics.

Short-stretch, low-elasticity bandages – such as the classic Unna boot loaded with zinc paste and topical corticosteroids – are well suited for patients with large leg ulcers. These bandages feature high working pressures during muscle contraction. They also provide low resting pressures, which is advantageous in patients with peripheral artery disease. The major disadvantage of short-stretch bandages is the need for frequent dressing changes by a nurse or other trained professional, since the compression is quickly lost as an unwanted consequence of the welcome reduction in swelling.

Multicomponent bandage systems feature two to four layers of bandages of differing stiffness, as well as padding material and in many cases pressure indicators. These bandages can often be worn for up to a week without needing to be changed, since they maintain adequate pressure long term. “These are very easy to use by nonexperts,” Dr. Conde noted.

A caveat regarding both short-stretch bandages and the multicomponent bandage systems: before applying them, it’s important to pad at-risk areas against injury caused by high pressures. These high-risk areas include the Achilles tendon, the pretibial region, and the lateral foot.

Self-adjusting compression systems are comprised of strips of short-stretch, low-elasticity fabric, which wrap around the leg and are fixed with Velcro closures. Dr. Conde hailed these devices as “a great innovation in compression therapy, without doubt.” Their major advantage is ease of application and removal by the patient. They are best-suited for treatment of small ulcers in patients who find it difficult to use compression stockings because of obesity or osteoarthritis, in patients who can’t tolerate such stockings because they have peripheral artery disease and the stockings’ high resting pressure is uncomfortable, or in individuals ill-suited for compression bandages because they lack adequate access to nursing care for the required frequent dressing changes.

Compression stockings are a good option for small ulcers. It’s easier for patients to wear shoes with compression stockings and thereby engage in normal everyday activities than with short-stretch bandages. A tip: Many patients find it arduous to don and remove a high-compression stocking that achieves the recommended pressure of 30-40 mm Hg at the point of transition between the Achilles tendon and the calf muscle, but the same effect can be achieved by overlapping two easier-to-use lower-compression stockings.

Punch grafting

This simple, cost-effective outpatient procedure was first described as a means of enhancing wound healing 150 years ago. The method involves utilizing a scalpel, curette, or punch to obtain a series of thin split-thickness skin grafts that contain epidermis and dermis down to the superficial papillary dermis. The grafts, usually harvested from the anterior thigh, are placed on the wound. This is followed by at least 5 days of local pressure and rest to promote graft uptake.

Sequential punch grafting is an excellent option for particularly challenging chronic ulcers, including Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers and other arteriolopathic ulcers in the elderly.

“Sequential punch grafting of wounds is very common in our clinics, especially for wounds that lack perfect grafting conditions,” Dr. Conde said.

She considers Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The Martorell leg ulcer is an exceedingly painful, rapidly progressive ischemic lesion, or bilateral lesions, with inflamed irregular margins. The disorder is caused by obstruction of subcutaneous arterioles in the absence of signs of vasculitis, and generally occurs in older individuals who have had well-controlled hypertension for many years. Diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and peripheral artery disease are common comorbid conditions. The most common form of treatment – bioactive dressings in a moist environment – produces unsatisfactory results because it doesn’t address the inflammatory process.

Dr. Conde and coworkers have published the full details of how they achieved complete healing of Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers 3-8 weeks after punch grafting in three affected patients, all of whom presented with pain scores of 10/10 refractory even to opioid analgesics. The punch grafting was preceded by 15 days of topical corticosteroids and low-elasticity compression bandages in order to create adequate granulation tissue in the wound bed, which had the added benefit of achieving a 2- to 3-point reduction in pain scores even before the surgical procedure.

The pain-reducing effect of punch grafting isn’t as well appreciated as the wound-healing effect. Dr. Conde was first author of a recent study in which investigators systematically measured pain reduction in 136 patients with hard-to-heal leg ulcers of various etiologies treated with punch grafting. Nearly three-quarters of those who presented with painful ulcers were pain free after punch grafting, and the rest experienced greater than 70% pain reduction.

Pain suppression wasn’t dependent upon the percentage of graft uptake in this study. That’s because, as long as the wound isn’t overcleaned during dressing changes, even grafts that haven’t attached to the wound will release growth factors that promote wound healing, Dr. Conde explained.
 

Adjunctive negative pressure therapy

Portable vacuum-based negative pressure therapy devices are easy to use as a means to promote punch graft uptake. Negative pressure is best employed as an adjunct to punch grafting in suboptimal wound beds, longstanding ulcers, in patients with previous graft failure, or in challenging anatomic locations, such as the Achilles tendon or ankle. Dr. Conde has found the combination of punch grafting and negative pressure therapy especially helpful in patients with clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum.

Topical sevoflurane for analgesia

Most of the literature on topical sevoflurane for ulcer care has been published by Spanish researchers, but this form of analgesia deserves much more widespread use, according to Dr. Conde.

Sevoflurane is most often used as a gas in general anesthesia. In liquid form, however, it not only has a rapid, long-lasting analgesic effect when applied to painful leg ulcers, it also promotes healing because it is both antibacterial and a vasodilator. So before performing a potentially painful ulcer or wound cleaning, Dr. Conde recommended protecting perilesional skin with petroleum jelly, then irrigating the ulcer site with liquid sevoflurane. After that, it’s advisable to wait just 5-10 minutes before proceeding.

“It takes effect in much less time than EMLA cream,” she noted.

In one study of 30 adults aged over age 65 years with painful chronic venous ulcers refractory to conventional analgesics who underwent ulcer cleaning supported by topical sevoflurane at a dose of roughly 1 mL/cm² of ulcer area every 2 days for a month, Spanish investigators documented onset of analgesic effect in 2-7 minutes, with a duration of 8-18 hours. The researchers found that the use of backup conventional analgesics ranging from acetaminophen to opioids was diminished. Side effects were limited to mild, transient itching and redness.

Dr. Conde reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Chronic leg ulcers of all types feature a significant inflammatory component for which medical compression therapy is absolutely the best form of anti-inflammatory therapy, Elena Conde Montero, MD, PhD, asserted at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In addition to delving into the finer points of compression therapy, she offered other clinical pearls for the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. These included the use of autologous punch grafting to reduce pain as well as promote healing, when to employ adjunctive negative pressure therapy, and the benefits of liquid sevoflurane for highly effective topical analgesia during wound cleansing and debridement.
 

Compression therapy

“If no contraindications exist, compression therapy is the best antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory treatment for all leg ulcers, not only venous leg ulcers,” according to Dr. Conde, a dermatologist at Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid.

The list of absolute contraindications to compression treatment is brief, as highlighted in a recent international consensus statement. The expert writing panel named only four: severe peripheral artery disease, the presence of an epifascial arterial bypass, severe cardiac insufficiency, and true allergy to compression material.

Compression therapy provides multiple salutary effects. These include reduced capillary filtration of fluids to tissue, decreased swelling, enhanced tissue remodeling, better lymphatic drainage, reduced inflammatory cell counts, and increased arterial flow.

“This means that people with mild arterial disease will benefit from active compression because perfusion will improve,” Dr. Conde said.

Similarly, leg ulcers secondary to pyoderma gangrenosum will benefit from the anti-inflammatory effects of compression therapy in conjunction with standard immunotherapy, added the dermatologist, who coauthored a recent publication by the European Wound Management Association entitled “Atypical Wounds: Best Clinical Practices and Challenges.”

Four broad types of compression therapy are available: compression stockings, short-stretch bandages, multicomponent bandage systems, and self-adjusting compression wrap devices. The best clinical outcomes are achieved by individualized selection of a compression method based upon patient characteristics.

Short-stretch, low-elasticity bandages – such as the classic Unna boot loaded with zinc paste and topical corticosteroids – are well suited for patients with large leg ulcers. These bandages feature high working pressures during muscle contraction. They also provide low resting pressures, which is advantageous in patients with peripheral artery disease. The major disadvantage of short-stretch bandages is the need for frequent dressing changes by a nurse or other trained professional, since the compression is quickly lost as an unwanted consequence of the welcome reduction in swelling.

Multicomponent bandage systems feature two to four layers of bandages of differing stiffness, as well as padding material and in many cases pressure indicators. These bandages can often be worn for up to a week without needing to be changed, since they maintain adequate pressure long term. “These are very easy to use by nonexperts,” Dr. Conde noted.

A caveat regarding both short-stretch bandages and the multicomponent bandage systems: before applying them, it’s important to pad at-risk areas against injury caused by high pressures. These high-risk areas include the Achilles tendon, the pretibial region, and the lateral foot.

Self-adjusting compression systems are comprised of strips of short-stretch, low-elasticity fabric, which wrap around the leg and are fixed with Velcro closures. Dr. Conde hailed these devices as “a great innovation in compression therapy, without doubt.” Their major advantage is ease of application and removal by the patient. They are best-suited for treatment of small ulcers in patients who find it difficult to use compression stockings because of obesity or osteoarthritis, in patients who can’t tolerate such stockings because they have peripheral artery disease and the stockings’ high resting pressure is uncomfortable, or in individuals ill-suited for compression bandages because they lack adequate access to nursing care for the required frequent dressing changes.

Compression stockings are a good option for small ulcers. It’s easier for patients to wear shoes with compression stockings and thereby engage in normal everyday activities than with short-stretch bandages. A tip: Many patients find it arduous to don and remove a high-compression stocking that achieves the recommended pressure of 30-40 mm Hg at the point of transition between the Achilles tendon and the calf muscle, but the same effect can be achieved by overlapping two easier-to-use lower-compression stockings.

Punch grafting

This simple, cost-effective outpatient procedure was first described as a means of enhancing wound healing 150 years ago. The method involves utilizing a scalpel, curette, or punch to obtain a series of thin split-thickness skin grafts that contain epidermis and dermis down to the superficial papillary dermis. The grafts, usually harvested from the anterior thigh, are placed on the wound. This is followed by at least 5 days of local pressure and rest to promote graft uptake.

Sequential punch grafting is an excellent option for particularly challenging chronic ulcers, including Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers and other arteriolopathic ulcers in the elderly.

“Sequential punch grafting of wounds is very common in our clinics, especially for wounds that lack perfect grafting conditions,” Dr. Conde said.

She considers Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The Martorell leg ulcer is an exceedingly painful, rapidly progressive ischemic lesion, or bilateral lesions, with inflamed irregular margins. The disorder is caused by obstruction of subcutaneous arterioles in the absence of signs of vasculitis, and generally occurs in older individuals who have had well-controlled hypertension for many years. Diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and peripheral artery disease are common comorbid conditions. The most common form of treatment – bioactive dressings in a moist environment – produces unsatisfactory results because it doesn’t address the inflammatory process.

Dr. Conde and coworkers have published the full details of how they achieved complete healing of Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers 3-8 weeks after punch grafting in three affected patients, all of whom presented with pain scores of 10/10 refractory even to opioid analgesics. The punch grafting was preceded by 15 days of topical corticosteroids and low-elasticity compression bandages in order to create adequate granulation tissue in the wound bed, which had the added benefit of achieving a 2- to 3-point reduction in pain scores even before the surgical procedure.

The pain-reducing effect of punch grafting isn’t as well appreciated as the wound-healing effect. Dr. Conde was first author of a recent study in which investigators systematically measured pain reduction in 136 patients with hard-to-heal leg ulcers of various etiologies treated with punch grafting. Nearly three-quarters of those who presented with painful ulcers were pain free after punch grafting, and the rest experienced greater than 70% pain reduction.

Pain suppression wasn’t dependent upon the percentage of graft uptake in this study. That’s because, as long as the wound isn’t overcleaned during dressing changes, even grafts that haven’t attached to the wound will release growth factors that promote wound healing, Dr. Conde explained.
 

Adjunctive negative pressure therapy

Portable vacuum-based negative pressure therapy devices are easy to use as a means to promote punch graft uptake. Negative pressure is best employed as an adjunct to punch grafting in suboptimal wound beds, longstanding ulcers, in patients with previous graft failure, or in challenging anatomic locations, such as the Achilles tendon or ankle. Dr. Conde has found the combination of punch grafting and negative pressure therapy especially helpful in patients with clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum.

Topical sevoflurane for analgesia

Most of the literature on topical sevoflurane for ulcer care has been published by Spanish researchers, but this form of analgesia deserves much more widespread use, according to Dr. Conde.

Sevoflurane is most often used as a gas in general anesthesia. In liquid form, however, it not only has a rapid, long-lasting analgesic effect when applied to painful leg ulcers, it also promotes healing because it is both antibacterial and a vasodilator. So before performing a potentially painful ulcer or wound cleaning, Dr. Conde recommended protecting perilesional skin with petroleum jelly, then irrigating the ulcer site with liquid sevoflurane. After that, it’s advisable to wait just 5-10 minutes before proceeding.

“It takes effect in much less time than EMLA cream,” she noted.

In one study of 30 adults aged over age 65 years with painful chronic venous ulcers refractory to conventional analgesics who underwent ulcer cleaning supported by topical sevoflurane at a dose of roughly 1 mL/cm² of ulcer area every 2 days for a month, Spanish investigators documented onset of analgesic effect in 2-7 minutes, with a duration of 8-18 hours. The researchers found that the use of backup conventional analgesics ranging from acetaminophen to opioids was diminished. Side effects were limited to mild, transient itching and redness.

Dr. Conde reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers has led the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery to issue a guidance outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.

The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.

“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.

The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.

“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.

In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.

The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.

“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.

The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.

Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.

“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.

As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.

The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

This article was updated 1/7/21.

Evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers has led the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery to issue a guidance outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.

The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.

“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.

The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.

“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.

In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.

The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.

“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.

The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.

Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.

“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.

As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.

The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

This article was updated 1/7/21.

Evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers has led the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery to issue a guidance outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.

The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.

“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.

The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.

“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.

In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.

The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.

“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.

The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.

Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.

“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.

As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.

The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

This article was updated 1/7/21.

Dermoscopic evaluation for detection of hypomelanotic and amelanotic melanomas is less accurate than for pigmented melanomas, but its utility can be boosted by familiarity with a handful of dermoscopic features specific to melanomas lacking significant pigment, Steven Q. Wang, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

These features emerged from a major study conducted on five continents by members of the International Dermoscopy Society. The investigators developed a simple, eight-variable model, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 56% for diagnosis of melanoma. And while that’s a markedly worse performance than when dermoscopy is used for detection of pigmented melanomas, where sensitivities in excess of 90% and specificities greater than 70% are typical, it’s nonetheless a significant improvement over naked-eye evaluation of these challenging pigment-deprived melanomas, noted Dr. Wang, director of dermatologic surgery and dermatology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Basking Ridge (N.J.)

Using the predictive model developed in the international study to evaluate lesions lacking pigment, a diagnosis of melanoma is made provided two conditions are met: The lesion can have no more than three milia-like cysts, and it has to possess one or more of seven positive dermoscopic findings. The strongest predictor of melanoma in the study was the presence of a blue-white veil, which in univariate analysis was associated with a 13-fold increased likelihood of melanoma.

The other positive predictors were irregularly shaped depigmentation, more than one shade of pink, predominant central vessels, irregularly sized or distributed brown dots or globules, multiple blue-gray dots, and dotted and linear irregular vessels.

Dr. Wang emphasized that, when dermoscopy and clinical skin examination of a featureless hypomelanotic or amelanotic lesion yield ambiguous findings, frequent vigilant follow-up is a viable strategy to detect early melanoma – provided the lesion is superficial.

“The reality is not all melanomas are the same. The superficial spreading melanomas and lentigo melanomas grow very, very slowly: less than 0.1 mm per month. Those are the types of lesions you can monitor. But there is one type of lesion you should never, ever monitor: nodular lesions. They are the type of lesions that can do your patient harm because nodular melanomas can grow really fast. So my key takeaway message is, if you see a nodule and you don’t know what it is, take it off,” the dermatologist said.

Dermoscopy in the hands of experienced users has repeatedly been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy by more than 25%. But there is an additional very important reason to embrace dermoscopy in daily clinical practice, according to Dr. Wang: “When you put the scope on an individual, you slow down the exam and patients feels like you’re paying more attention to them.”

That’s worthwhile because the No. 1 complaint voiced by patients who make their way to Sloan Kettering for a second opinion is that their prior skin examination by an outside physician wasn’t thorough. They’re often angry about it. And while it’s true that incorporating dermoscopy does make for a lengthier skin examination, the additional time involved is actually minimal. Dr. Wang cited a randomized, prospective, multicenter study which documented that the median time required to conduct a thorough complete skin examination without dermoscopy was 70 seconds versus 142 seconds with dermoscopy.

Dr. Wang reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Dermoscopic evaluation for detection of hypomelanotic and amelanotic melanomas is less accurate than for pigmented melanomas, but its utility can be boosted by familiarity with a handful of dermoscopic features specific to melanomas lacking significant pigment, Steven Q. Wang, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

These features emerged from a major study conducted on five continents by members of the International Dermoscopy Society. The investigators developed a simple, eight-variable model, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 56% for diagnosis of melanoma. And while that’s a markedly worse performance than when dermoscopy is used for detection of pigmented melanomas, where sensitivities in excess of 90% and specificities greater than 70% are typical, it’s nonetheless a significant improvement over naked-eye evaluation of these challenging pigment-deprived melanomas, noted Dr. Wang, director of dermatologic surgery and dermatology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Basking Ridge (N.J.)

Using the predictive model developed in the international study to evaluate lesions lacking pigment, a diagnosis of melanoma is made provided two conditions are met: The lesion can have no more than three milia-like cysts, and it has to possess one or more of seven positive dermoscopic findings. The strongest predictor of melanoma in the study was the presence of a blue-white veil, which in univariate analysis was associated with a 13-fold increased likelihood of melanoma.

The other positive predictors were irregularly shaped depigmentation, more than one shade of pink, predominant central vessels, irregularly sized or distributed brown dots or globules, multiple blue-gray dots, and dotted and linear irregular vessels.

Dr. Wang emphasized that, when dermoscopy and clinical skin examination of a featureless hypomelanotic or amelanotic lesion yield ambiguous findings, frequent vigilant follow-up is a viable strategy to detect early melanoma – provided the lesion is superficial.

“The reality is not all melanomas are the same. The superficial spreading melanomas and lentigo melanomas grow very, very slowly: less than 0.1 mm per month. Those are the types of lesions you can monitor. But there is one type of lesion you should never, ever monitor: nodular lesions. They are the type of lesions that can do your patient harm because nodular melanomas can grow really fast. So my key takeaway message is, if you see a nodule and you don’t know what it is, take it off,” the dermatologist said.

Dermoscopy in the hands of experienced users has repeatedly been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy by more than 25%. But there is an additional very important reason to embrace dermoscopy in daily clinical practice, according to Dr. Wang: “When you put the scope on an individual, you slow down the exam and patients feels like you’re paying more attention to them.”

That’s worthwhile because the No. 1 complaint voiced by patients who make their way to Sloan Kettering for a second opinion is that their prior skin examination by an outside physician wasn’t thorough. They’re often angry about it. And while it’s true that incorporating dermoscopy does make for a lengthier skin examination, the additional time involved is actually minimal. Dr. Wang cited a randomized, prospective, multicenter study which documented that the median time required to conduct a thorough complete skin examination without dermoscopy was 70 seconds versus 142 seconds with dermoscopy.

Dr. Wang reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Dermoscopic evaluation for detection of hypomelanotic and amelanotic melanomas is less accurate than for pigmented melanomas, but its utility can be boosted by familiarity with a handful of dermoscopic features specific to melanomas lacking significant pigment, Steven Q. Wang, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

These features emerged from a major study conducted on five continents by members of the International Dermoscopy Society. The investigators developed a simple, eight-variable model, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 56% for diagnosis of melanoma. And while that’s a markedly worse performance than when dermoscopy is used for detection of pigmented melanomas, where sensitivities in excess of 90% and specificities greater than 70% are typical, it’s nonetheless a significant improvement over naked-eye evaluation of these challenging pigment-deprived melanomas, noted Dr. Wang, director of dermatologic surgery and dermatology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Basking Ridge (N.J.)

Using the predictive model developed in the international study to evaluate lesions lacking pigment, a diagnosis of melanoma is made provided two conditions are met: The lesion can have no more than three milia-like cysts, and it has to possess one or more of seven positive dermoscopic findings. The strongest predictor of melanoma in the study was the presence of a blue-white veil, which in univariate analysis was associated with a 13-fold increased likelihood of melanoma.

The other positive predictors were irregularly shaped depigmentation, more than one shade of pink, predominant central vessels, irregularly sized or distributed brown dots or globules, multiple blue-gray dots, and dotted and linear irregular vessels.

Dr. Wang emphasized that, when dermoscopy and clinical skin examination of a featureless hypomelanotic or amelanotic lesion yield ambiguous findings, frequent vigilant follow-up is a viable strategy to detect early melanoma – provided the lesion is superficial.

“The reality is not all melanomas are the same. The superficial spreading melanomas and lentigo melanomas grow very, very slowly: less than 0.1 mm per month. Those are the types of lesions you can monitor. But there is one type of lesion you should never, ever monitor: nodular lesions. They are the type of lesions that can do your patient harm because nodular melanomas can grow really fast. So my key takeaway message is, if you see a nodule and you don’t know what it is, take it off,” the dermatologist said.

Dermoscopy in the hands of experienced users has repeatedly been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy by more than 25%. But there is an additional very important reason to embrace dermoscopy in daily clinical practice, according to Dr. Wang: “When you put the scope on an individual, you slow down the exam and patients feels like you’re paying more attention to them.”

That’s worthwhile because the No. 1 complaint voiced by patients who make their way to Sloan Kettering for a second opinion is that their prior skin examination by an outside physician wasn’t thorough. They’re often angry about it. And while it’s true that incorporating dermoscopy does make for a lengthier skin examination, the additional time involved is actually minimal. Dr. Wang cited a randomized, prospective, multicenter study which documented that the median time required to conduct a thorough complete skin examination without dermoscopy was 70 seconds versus 142 seconds with dermoscopy.

Dr. Wang reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus, based on data from 739 patients.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a common treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); studies suggest that it may protect against thrombosis, but the optimal dosing for this purpose remains unknown, wrote Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined data on HCQ levels from 739 adults with SLE who were part of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a longitudinal study of outcomes in SLE patients. Of these, 38 (5.1%) developed thrombosis during 2,330 person-years of follow-up.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The average age of the patients at the time HCQ measurements began was 43 years, 93% were female, and 46% were White. Patients visited a clinic every 3 months, and HCQ levels were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

“Between-person and within-person correlation coefficients were used to measure the strength of the linear association between HCQ blood levels and commonly prescribed HCQ doses from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg,” the researchers said.

Higher doses of HCQ have been associated with increased risk for retinopathy, and current guidelines recommend using less than 5 mg/kg of ideal body weight, the researchers said. “Importantly, there was no correlation between the prescribed dose and the hydroxychloroquine blood level over the range (4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg) used in clinical practice, highlighting the need for personalized hydroxychloroquine drug level-guided therapy and dose adjustment,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and potential confounding from variables not included in the model, as well as the small sample size, single site, and single rheumatologist involved in the study, the researchers noted.

The results suggest that aiming for a blood HCQ level of 1,068 ng/mL can be done safely to help prevent thrombosis in patients with SLE, the researchers said. “Routine clinical integration of hydroxychloroquine blood level measurement offers an opportunity for personalized drug dosing and risk management beyond rigid empirical dosing recommendations in patients with SLE,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Petri M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jan 6. doi: 10.1002/ART.41621.

Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus, based on data from 739 patients.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a common treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); studies suggest that it may protect against thrombosis, but the optimal dosing for this purpose remains unknown, wrote Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined data on HCQ levels from 739 adults with SLE who were part of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a longitudinal study of outcomes in SLE patients. Of these, 38 (5.1%) developed thrombosis during 2,330 person-years of follow-up.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The average age of the patients at the time HCQ measurements began was 43 years, 93% were female, and 46% were White. Patients visited a clinic every 3 months, and HCQ levels were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

“Between-person and within-person correlation coefficients were used to measure the strength of the linear association between HCQ blood levels and commonly prescribed HCQ doses from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg,” the researchers said.

Higher doses of HCQ have been associated with increased risk for retinopathy, and current guidelines recommend using less than 5 mg/kg of ideal body weight, the researchers said. “Importantly, there was no correlation between the prescribed dose and the hydroxychloroquine blood level over the range (4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg) used in clinical practice, highlighting the need for personalized hydroxychloroquine drug level-guided therapy and dose adjustment,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and potential confounding from variables not included in the model, as well as the small sample size, single site, and single rheumatologist involved in the study, the researchers noted.

The results suggest that aiming for a blood HCQ level of 1,068 ng/mL can be done safely to help prevent thrombosis in patients with SLE, the researchers said. “Routine clinical integration of hydroxychloroquine blood level measurement offers an opportunity for personalized drug dosing and risk management beyond rigid empirical dosing recommendations in patients with SLE,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Petri M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jan 6. doi: 10.1002/ART.41621.

Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus, based on data from 739 patients.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a common treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); studies suggest that it may protect against thrombosis, but the optimal dosing for this purpose remains unknown, wrote Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined data on HCQ levels from 739 adults with SLE who were part of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a longitudinal study of outcomes in SLE patients. Of these, 38 (5.1%) developed thrombosis during 2,330 person-years of follow-up.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The average age of the patients at the time HCQ measurements began was 43 years, 93% were female, and 46% were White. Patients visited a clinic every 3 months, and HCQ levels were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

“Between-person and within-person correlation coefficients were used to measure the strength of the linear association between HCQ blood levels and commonly prescribed HCQ doses from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg,” the researchers said.

Higher doses of HCQ have been associated with increased risk for retinopathy, and current guidelines recommend using less than 5 mg/kg of ideal body weight, the researchers said. “Importantly, there was no correlation between the prescribed dose and the hydroxychloroquine blood level over the range (4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg) used in clinical practice, highlighting the need for personalized hydroxychloroquine drug level-guided therapy and dose adjustment,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and potential confounding from variables not included in the model, as well as the small sample size, single site, and single rheumatologist involved in the study, the researchers noted.

The results suggest that aiming for a blood HCQ level of 1,068 ng/mL can be done safely to help prevent thrombosis in patients with SLE, the researchers said. “Routine clinical integration of hydroxychloroquine blood level measurement offers an opportunity for personalized drug dosing and risk management beyond rigid empirical dosing recommendations in patients with SLE,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Petri M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jan 6. doi: 10.1002/ART.41621.

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigational oral selective Janus kinase 1 and JAK2 inhibitor maintained strong efficacy and tolerability for treatment of alopecia areata through 1 year of use in an ongoing open-label extension study of a trio of 24-week, phase 2 randomized trials, James V. Cassella, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“So far, I’d say that the results are very encouraging from this study, as we see good safety and continued stability of the hair regrowth in the open-label extension,” said Dr. Cassella, chief development officer at Concert Pharmaceuticals of Lexington, Mass.

The study drug, known for now as CTP-543, is a deuterium-modified form of the selective JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. CTP-543 was expressly designed for treatment of alopecia areata, a chronic autoimmune disease for which no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy exists. Dr. Cassella characterized alopecia areata as a “devastating and poorly treated” autoimmune disease which affects men, women, and children of all ages and has a lifetime risk of about 2%.

Participants in the open-label extension were typically in their late 30s, with an average disease duration of 3-4 years. Two-thirds were women, and more than three-quarters were White. Their baseline Severity of Alopecia Areata Tool (SALT) score was in the high 80s, indicative of moderate to severe disease.

About 92% of eligible participants from the three phase 2 trials elected to enroll in the long-term extension, a remarkably high participation rate reflective of the major unmet need for effective treatments for this chronic disease.
 

Efficacy

Of the 152 patients who enrolled in an ongoing open-label extension, which had been going for 108 weeks at the time of the presentation, 130 who completed at least 1 year on CTP-543 formed the focus of Dr. Cassella’s presentation. The great majority of participants were on 12 mg twice daily. By week 24 in the original phase 2 trials, SALT scores decreased by more than 50%, compared with baseline, with an average score of about 40. This level of efficacy was maintained through the first 6 months of the extension study – meaning a total of at least 1 year on treatment – in roughly two-thirds of participants, while one-third saw further progressive improvement during the first 6 months of the open-label extension, with SALT scores dropping into the 20-30 range.

“You see remarkable stability of hair regrowth beyond 6 months,” Dr. Cassella commented. Only 2 patients experienced a clear loss of response during the open-label extension.
 

Safety and tolerability

About 15% of patients have dropped out of the long-term study, which in only three cases was because of adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events, which occurred in 13% of participants, were rated as mild in 76% and moderate in 21%. The most common were nasopharyngitis, acne, and elevated creatine phosphokinase. Two severe adverse events were deemed “possibly related” to treatment. No new types of side effects have emerged during the long-term extension study. Laboratory monitoring of hemoglobin, neutrophils, and platelets has shown stable levels over time.

An audience member asked how quickly hair loss occurs upon stopping therapy.

“Surprisingly, in the few dose interruptions we’ve had – for changes in hematologic parameters, for example – we have not seen any hair loss in up to a 3-week time period. It’s a very interesting question that we will continue to study,” Dr. Cassella replied. He added: “The general thinking in the community has been, at some point with JAK inhibitors, you will lose your hair if you stop treatment.”

Dr. Cassella is an employee of Concert Pharmaceuticals, and has received company stock.

bjancin@mdedge.com

An investigational oral selective Janus kinase 1 and JAK2 inhibitor maintained strong efficacy and tolerability for treatment of alopecia areata through 1 year of use in an ongoing open-label extension study of a trio of 24-week, phase 2 randomized trials, James V. Cassella, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“So far, I’d say that the results are very encouraging from this study, as we see good safety and continued stability of the hair regrowth in the open-label extension,” said Dr. Cassella, chief development officer at Concert Pharmaceuticals of Lexington, Mass.

The study drug, known for now as CTP-543, is a deuterium-modified form of the selective JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. CTP-543 was expressly designed for treatment of alopecia areata, a chronic autoimmune disease for which no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy exists. Dr. Cassella characterized alopecia areata as a “devastating and poorly treated” autoimmune disease which affects men, women, and children of all ages and has a lifetime risk of about 2%.

Participants in the open-label extension were typically in their late 30s, with an average disease duration of 3-4 years. Two-thirds were women, and more than three-quarters were White. Their baseline Severity of Alopecia Areata Tool (SALT) score was in the high 80s, indicative of moderate to severe disease.

About 92% of eligible participants from the three phase 2 trials elected to enroll in the long-term extension, a remarkably high participation rate reflective of the major unmet need for effective treatments for this chronic disease.
 

Efficacy

Of the 152 patients who enrolled in an ongoing open-label extension, which had been going for 108 weeks at the time of the presentation, 130 who completed at least 1 year on CTP-543 formed the focus of Dr. Cassella’s presentation. The great majority of participants were on 12 mg twice daily. By week 24 in the original phase 2 trials, SALT scores decreased by more than 50%, compared with baseline, with an average score of about 40. This level of efficacy was maintained through the first 6 months of the extension study – meaning a total of at least 1 year on treatment – in roughly two-thirds of participants, while one-third saw further progressive improvement during the first 6 months of the open-label extension, with SALT scores dropping into the 20-30 range.

“You see remarkable stability of hair regrowth beyond 6 months,” Dr. Cassella commented. Only 2 patients experienced a clear loss of response during the open-label extension.
 

Safety and tolerability

About 15% of patients have dropped out of the long-term study, which in only three cases was because of adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events, which occurred in 13% of participants, were rated as mild in 76% and moderate in 21%. The most common were nasopharyngitis, acne, and elevated creatine phosphokinase. Two severe adverse events were deemed “possibly related” to treatment. No new types of side effects have emerged during the long-term extension study. Laboratory monitoring of hemoglobin, neutrophils, and platelets has shown stable levels over time.

An audience member asked how quickly hair loss occurs upon stopping therapy.

“Surprisingly, in the few dose interruptions we’ve had – for changes in hematologic parameters, for example – we have not seen any hair loss in up to a 3-week time period. It’s a very interesting question that we will continue to study,” Dr. Cassella replied. He added: “The general thinking in the community has been, at some point with JAK inhibitors, you will lose your hair if you stop treatment.”

Dr. Cassella is an employee of Concert Pharmaceuticals, and has received company stock.

bjancin@mdedge.com

An investigational oral selective Janus kinase 1 and JAK2 inhibitor maintained strong efficacy and tolerability for treatment of alopecia areata through 1 year of use in an ongoing open-label extension study of a trio of 24-week, phase 2 randomized trials, James V. Cassella, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“So far, I’d say that the results are very encouraging from this study, as we see good safety and continued stability of the hair regrowth in the open-label extension,” said Dr. Cassella, chief development officer at Concert Pharmaceuticals of Lexington, Mass.

The study drug, known for now as CTP-543, is a deuterium-modified form of the selective JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. CTP-543 was expressly designed for treatment of alopecia areata, a chronic autoimmune disease for which no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy exists. Dr. Cassella characterized alopecia areata as a “devastating and poorly treated” autoimmune disease which affects men, women, and children of all ages and has a lifetime risk of about 2%.

Participants in the open-label extension were typically in their late 30s, with an average disease duration of 3-4 years. Two-thirds were women, and more than three-quarters were White. Their baseline Severity of Alopecia Areata Tool (SALT) score was in the high 80s, indicative of moderate to severe disease.

About 92% of eligible participants from the three phase 2 trials elected to enroll in the long-term extension, a remarkably high participation rate reflective of the major unmet need for effective treatments for this chronic disease.
 

Efficacy

Of the 152 patients who enrolled in an ongoing open-label extension, which had been going for 108 weeks at the time of the presentation, 130 who completed at least 1 year on CTP-543 formed the focus of Dr. Cassella’s presentation. The great majority of participants were on 12 mg twice daily. By week 24 in the original phase 2 trials, SALT scores decreased by more than 50%, compared with baseline, with an average score of about 40. This level of efficacy was maintained through the first 6 months of the extension study – meaning a total of at least 1 year on treatment – in roughly two-thirds of participants, while one-third saw further progressive improvement during the first 6 months of the open-label extension, with SALT scores dropping into the 20-30 range.

“You see remarkable stability of hair regrowth beyond 6 months,” Dr. Cassella commented. Only 2 patients experienced a clear loss of response during the open-label extension.
 

Safety and tolerability

About 15% of patients have dropped out of the long-term study, which in only three cases was because of adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events, which occurred in 13% of participants, were rated as mild in 76% and moderate in 21%. The most common were nasopharyngitis, acne, and elevated creatine phosphokinase. Two severe adverse events were deemed “possibly related” to treatment. No new types of side effects have emerged during the long-term extension study. Laboratory monitoring of hemoglobin, neutrophils, and platelets has shown stable levels over time.

An audience member asked how quickly hair loss occurs upon stopping therapy.

“Surprisingly, in the few dose interruptions we’ve had – for changes in hematologic parameters, for example – we have not seen any hair loss in up to a 3-week time period. It’s a very interesting question that we will continue to study,” Dr. Cassella replied. He added: “The general thinking in the community has been, at some point with JAK inhibitors, you will lose your hair if you stop treatment.”

Dr. Cassella is an employee of Concert Pharmaceuticals, and has received company stock.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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