Internal Medicine News

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with normal body mass index (BMI) measurements may still face an increased risk for colorectal cancer if they have central obesity, characterized by excess fat around the abdomen.

METHODOLOGY:

• General obesity, often measured using BMI, is a recognized risk factor for colorectal cancer, but how much of this association is due to central obesity is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the associations between BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist circumference (WC) with colorectal cancer risk and the degree of independence among these associations in patients aged 40-69 years recruited in the UK Biobank cohort study from 2006 to 2010.
• Anthropometric measurements were performed using standardized methods.
• Cancer registry and hospital data linkage identified colorectal cancer cases in the UK Biobank.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 460,784 participants (mean age, 56.3 years; 46.7% men), of whom 67.1% had either overweight or obesity, and 49.4% and 60.5% had high or very high WHR and WC, respectively.
• During the median 12.5-year follow-up period, 5977 participants developed colorectal cancer.
• Every SD increase in WHR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18) showed a stronger association with colorectal cancer risk than in BMI (HR, 1.10).
• After adjustment for BMI, the association between WHR and colorectal cancer risk became slightly attenuated while still staying robust (HR, 1.15); however, after adjusting for WHR, the association between BMI and colorectal cancer risk became substantially weakened (HR, 1.04).
• WHR showed strongly significant associations with colorectal cancer risk across all BMI categories, whereas associations of BMI with colorectal cancer risk were weak and not statistically significant within all WHR categories.
• Central obesity demonstrated consistent associations with both colon and rectal cancer risks in both sexes before and after adjustment for BMI, whereas BMI showed no significant association with colorectal cancer risk in women or with rectal cancer risk after WHR adjustment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] results also underline the importance of integrating additional anthropometric measures such as WHR alongside BMI into routine clinical practice for more effective prevention and management of obesity, whose prevalence is steadily increasing in many countries worldwide, in order to limit the global burden of colorectal cancer and many other obesity-related adverse health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fatemeh Safizadeh, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg. It was published online in The International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on only one-time measurements of anthropometric measures at baseline, without considering previous lifetime history of overweight and obesity or changes during follow-up. Additionally, WHR and WC may not be the most accurate measures of central obesity, as WC includes both visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue. The study population also showed evidence of healthy volunteer bias, with more health-conscious and socioeconomically advantaged participants being somewhat overrepresented.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with normal body mass index (BMI) measurements may still face an increased risk for colorectal cancer if they have central obesity, characterized by excess fat around the abdomen.

METHODOLOGY:

• General obesity, often measured using BMI, is a recognized risk factor for colorectal cancer, but how much of this association is due to central obesity is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the associations between BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist circumference (WC) with colorectal cancer risk and the degree of independence among these associations in patients aged 40-69 years recruited in the UK Biobank cohort study from 2006 to 2010.
• Anthropometric measurements were performed using standardized methods.
• Cancer registry and hospital data linkage identified colorectal cancer cases in the UK Biobank.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 460,784 participants (mean age, 56.3 years; 46.7% men), of whom 67.1% had either overweight or obesity, and 49.4% and 60.5% had high or very high WHR and WC, respectively.
• During the median 12.5-year follow-up period, 5977 participants developed colorectal cancer.
• Every SD increase in WHR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18) showed a stronger association with colorectal cancer risk than in BMI (HR, 1.10).
• After adjustment for BMI, the association between WHR and colorectal cancer risk became slightly attenuated while still staying robust (HR, 1.15); however, after adjusting for WHR, the association between BMI and colorectal cancer risk became substantially weakened (HR, 1.04).
• WHR showed strongly significant associations with colorectal cancer risk across all BMI categories, whereas associations of BMI with colorectal cancer risk were weak and not statistically significant within all WHR categories.
• Central obesity demonstrated consistent associations with both colon and rectal cancer risks in both sexes before and after adjustment for BMI, whereas BMI showed no significant association with colorectal cancer risk in women or with rectal cancer risk after WHR adjustment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] results also underline the importance of integrating additional anthropometric measures such as WHR alongside BMI into routine clinical practice for more effective prevention and management of obesity, whose prevalence is steadily increasing in many countries worldwide, in order to limit the global burden of colorectal cancer and many other obesity-related adverse health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fatemeh Safizadeh, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg. It was published online in The International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on only one-time measurements of anthropometric measures at baseline, without considering previous lifetime history of overweight and obesity or changes during follow-up. Additionally, WHR and WC may not be the most accurate measures of central obesity, as WC includes both visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue. The study population also showed evidence of healthy volunteer bias, with more health-conscious and socioeconomically advantaged participants being somewhat overrepresented.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with normal body mass index (BMI) measurements may still face an increased risk for colorectal cancer if they have central obesity, characterized by excess fat around the abdomen.

METHODOLOGY:

• General obesity, often measured using BMI, is a recognized risk factor for colorectal cancer, but how much of this association is due to central obesity is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the associations between BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist circumference (WC) with colorectal cancer risk and the degree of independence among these associations in patients aged 40-69 years recruited in the UK Biobank cohort study from 2006 to 2010.
• Anthropometric measurements were performed using standardized methods.
• Cancer registry and hospital data linkage identified colorectal cancer cases in the UK Biobank.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 460,784 participants (mean age, 56.3 years; 46.7% men), of whom 67.1% had either overweight or obesity, and 49.4% and 60.5% had high or very high WHR and WC, respectively.
• During the median 12.5-year follow-up period, 5977 participants developed colorectal cancer.
• Every SD increase in WHR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18) showed a stronger association with colorectal cancer risk than in BMI (HR, 1.10).
• After adjustment for BMI, the association between WHR and colorectal cancer risk became slightly attenuated while still staying robust (HR, 1.15); however, after adjusting for WHR, the association between BMI and colorectal cancer risk became substantially weakened (HR, 1.04).
• WHR showed strongly significant associations with colorectal cancer risk across all BMI categories, whereas associations of BMI with colorectal cancer risk were weak and not statistically significant within all WHR categories.
• Central obesity demonstrated consistent associations with both colon and rectal cancer risks in both sexes before and after adjustment for BMI, whereas BMI showed no significant association with colorectal cancer risk in women or with rectal cancer risk after WHR adjustment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] results also underline the importance of integrating additional anthropometric measures such as WHR alongside BMI into routine clinical practice for more effective prevention and management of obesity, whose prevalence is steadily increasing in many countries worldwide, in order to limit the global burden of colorectal cancer and many other obesity-related adverse health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fatemeh Safizadeh, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg. It was published online in The International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on only one-time measurements of anthropometric measures at baseline, without considering previous lifetime history of overweight and obesity or changes during follow-up. Additionally, WHR and WC may not be the most accurate measures of central obesity, as WC includes both visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue. The study population also showed evidence of healthy volunteer bias, with more health-conscious and socioeconomically advantaged participants being somewhat overrepresented.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biosimilars demonstrate comparable drug survival and safety with adalimumab among new users, but patients switching from Humira (the originator product) to biosimilars had a 35% higher discontinuation rate than those who remained on Humira.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data on patients with psoriasis who were treated with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor used to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, from the French National Health Data System, British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, and Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis.
• The analysis included 7387 adalimumab-naive patients who were new users of an adalimumab biosimilar and 3654 patients (switchers) who switched from Humira to a biosimilar. Patients were matched and compared with patients receiving Humira.
• Co-primary outcomes of the study were drug discontinuation and serious adverse events.
• Researchers assessed the following adalimumab biosimilar brands: Amgevita, Imraldi, Hyrimoz, Idacio, and Hulio.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause drug discontinuation rates were similar between new users of biosimilars and Humira new users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04).
• Discontinuation rates were higher among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.52) than among those who stayed on Humira. Switching to Amgevita (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), Imraldi (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76), and Hyrimoz (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.29-2.52) was associated with higher discontinuation rates.
• Serious adverse events were not significantly different between new users of Humira and biosimilar new users (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05), and between patients who switched from a biosimilar to Humira and those who stayed on Humira (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01).
• No significant differences in discontinuation because of ineffectiveness were found between biosimilar and Humira new users (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Discontinuation because of adverse events was also comparable for all biosimilars among new users, except for Hyrimoz (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85), which showed fewer discontinuations than Humira.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found comparable drug survival and safety between adalimumab biosimilars and Humira in adalimumab-naive patients, supporting the use of biosimilars as viable alternatives for new patients,” the authors wrote. However, noting that discontinuation was more likely among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar, they added: “Changes in treatment response, skin or injection site reactions, and nocebo effects may contribute to treatment discontinuation post-switch. Thus, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support to alleviate these challenges.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Duc Binh Phan, Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England. It was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Unmeasured factors including psychological perceptions, regional policies, and drug availability could influence drug survival, making the results not fully reflective of treatment effectiveness or safety. Most Humira users in registries were enrolled before biosimilars became available, making it impractical to match new users on the basis of treatment initiation years. Additionally, reasons for discontinuation were not available in the French National Health Data System.

DISCLOSURES:

In the United Kingdom, the research was funded by the Psoriasis Association PhD studentship and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. In France, the authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, and the Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris and received no funding. The authors reported receiving consulting and speaker fees and clinical trial sponsorship from various pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biosimilars demonstrate comparable drug survival and safety with adalimumab among new users, but patients switching from Humira (the originator product) to biosimilars had a 35% higher discontinuation rate than those who remained on Humira.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data on patients with psoriasis who were treated with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor used to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, from the French National Health Data System, British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, and Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis.
• The analysis included 7387 adalimumab-naive patients who were new users of an adalimumab biosimilar and 3654 patients (switchers) who switched from Humira to a biosimilar. Patients were matched and compared with patients receiving Humira.
• Co-primary outcomes of the study were drug discontinuation and serious adverse events.
• Researchers assessed the following adalimumab biosimilar brands: Amgevita, Imraldi, Hyrimoz, Idacio, and Hulio.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause drug discontinuation rates were similar between new users of biosimilars and Humira new users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04).
• Discontinuation rates were higher among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.52) than among those who stayed on Humira. Switching to Amgevita (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), Imraldi (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76), and Hyrimoz (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.29-2.52) was associated with higher discontinuation rates.
• Serious adverse events were not significantly different between new users of Humira and biosimilar new users (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05), and between patients who switched from a biosimilar to Humira and those who stayed on Humira (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01).
• No significant differences in discontinuation because of ineffectiveness were found between biosimilar and Humira new users (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Discontinuation because of adverse events was also comparable for all biosimilars among new users, except for Hyrimoz (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85), which showed fewer discontinuations than Humira.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found comparable drug survival and safety between adalimumab biosimilars and Humira in adalimumab-naive patients, supporting the use of biosimilars as viable alternatives for new patients,” the authors wrote. However, noting that discontinuation was more likely among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar, they added: “Changes in treatment response, skin or injection site reactions, and nocebo effects may contribute to treatment discontinuation post-switch. Thus, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support to alleviate these challenges.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Duc Binh Phan, Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England. It was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Unmeasured factors including psychological perceptions, regional policies, and drug availability could influence drug survival, making the results not fully reflective of treatment effectiveness or safety. Most Humira users in registries were enrolled before biosimilars became available, making it impractical to match new users on the basis of treatment initiation years. Additionally, reasons for discontinuation were not available in the French National Health Data System.

DISCLOSURES:

In the United Kingdom, the research was funded by the Psoriasis Association PhD studentship and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. In France, the authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, and the Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris and received no funding. The authors reported receiving consulting and speaker fees and clinical trial sponsorship from various pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biosimilars demonstrate comparable drug survival and safety with adalimumab among new users, but patients switching from Humira (the originator product) to biosimilars had a 35% higher discontinuation rate than those who remained on Humira.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data on patients with psoriasis who were treated with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor used to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, from the French National Health Data System, British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, and Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis.
• The analysis included 7387 adalimumab-naive patients who were new users of an adalimumab biosimilar and 3654 patients (switchers) who switched from Humira to a biosimilar. Patients were matched and compared with patients receiving Humira.
• Co-primary outcomes of the study were drug discontinuation and serious adverse events.
• Researchers assessed the following adalimumab biosimilar brands: Amgevita, Imraldi, Hyrimoz, Idacio, and Hulio.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause drug discontinuation rates were similar between new users of biosimilars and Humira new users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04).
• Discontinuation rates were higher among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.52) than among those who stayed on Humira. Switching to Amgevita (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), Imraldi (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76), and Hyrimoz (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.29-2.52) was associated with higher discontinuation rates.
• Serious adverse events were not significantly different between new users of Humira and biosimilar new users (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05), and between patients who switched from a biosimilar to Humira and those who stayed on Humira (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01).
• No significant differences in discontinuation because of ineffectiveness were found between biosimilar and Humira new users (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Discontinuation because of adverse events was also comparable for all biosimilars among new users, except for Hyrimoz (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85), which showed fewer discontinuations than Humira.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found comparable drug survival and safety between adalimumab biosimilars and Humira in adalimumab-naive patients, supporting the use of biosimilars as viable alternatives for new patients,” the authors wrote. However, noting that discontinuation was more likely among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar, they added: “Changes in treatment response, skin or injection site reactions, and nocebo effects may contribute to treatment discontinuation post-switch. Thus, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support to alleviate these challenges.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Duc Binh Phan, Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England. It was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Unmeasured factors including psychological perceptions, regional policies, and drug availability could influence drug survival, making the results not fully reflective of treatment effectiveness or safety. Most Humira users in registries were enrolled before biosimilars became available, making it impractical to match new users on the basis of treatment initiation years. Additionally, reasons for discontinuation were not available in the French National Health Data System.

DISCLOSURES:

In the United Kingdom, the research was funded by the Psoriasis Association PhD studentship and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. In France, the authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, and the Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris and received no funding. The authors reported receiving consulting and speaker fees and clinical trial sponsorship from various pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS — Onychomycosis, a stubborn fungal infection of the nail bed, is responsible for half of all nail diseases and presents a tricky challenge when it comes to both diagnosis and treatment.

According to Tracey C. Vlahovic, DPM, a professor at the Samuel Merritt University College of Podiatric Medicine, Oakland, California, most cases of onychomycosis are caused by the dermatophytes Trichophyton rubrum and T mentagrophytes, although the cause can also be a mixed infection. “Dermatophytes are going to impact the nails first, and molds may come in and join the party later,” she said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference.

 

“The distal subungual onychomycosis (DSO) type is still the most common, but don’t forget that onychomycosis and nail psoriasis can happen at the same time. What we can’t lose sight of is that onychomycosis is a disease of the nail bed, which ultimately affects the nail plate; it’s not a disease of the nail plate first.”

Her diagnostic approach combines periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining with fungal culture “because I like to know the speciation,” she said. “PAS doesn’t give me the speciation; fungal cultures should. PCR can be expensive, but that can give me speciation.”

 

How Does This Happen?

Fungal DSO occurs because of exposure to a dermatophyte, which can be as simple as tinea pedis. “Perhaps it’s the environment in the shoe,” said Vlahovic, one of the authors of a textbook on onychomycosis. “That’s something I’m always concentrating on with the patient. What is your foot hygiene like? What’s your shoe and sock wear? What’s your level of physical activity? You can have trauma to the hyponychium, where the skin and the nail meet. Maybe they trim their nails too close to the skin, or maybe there’s another skin condition like psoriasis.”

The dermatophyte, she continued, enters and invades the nail at the hyponychium and uses the keratinase enzyme to digest keratin in the nail bed. Mild inflammation develops, and pH changes cause focal parakeratosis and subungual hyperkeratosis in the form of onycholysis and subungual debris. “Hyphae then invade the lamina of the nail plate, which causes brittle nails,” she said. “The compromised hyponychium creates a reservoir for molds and bacteria.”

Therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for onychomycosis include the topical agents efinaconazole, tavaborole, and ciclopirox; the oral agents terbinafine and itraconazole; and laser therapy. Off-label, Vlahovic said that she sometimes uses oral fluconazole, pulsed dosing for terbinafine, and booster doses of terbinafine or any approved oral antifungal agent. Pulse dosing for itraconazole is FDA-approved for fingernails but not for toenails.

“We don’t have any oral antifungals that are approved for children, but we do have weight-based dosing,” she noted. Other off-label treatments for onychomycosis that patients may come across while browsing the internet but do not penetrate the nail plate, include products containing tolnaftate, tree oil, and undecylenic acid, “which is a very long-chain antifungal,” Vlahovic said. “It’s so huge that it can’t get through the nail plate. These products must get through the nail plate into the nail bed where the infection is.”

According to therapeutic recommendations for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in the United States, published in 2021, terbinafine is the primary choice for oral treatment and efinaconazole 10% for topical treatment. There are no current treatment recommendations for pregnant or lactating patients. “I always defer to the obstetrician,” said Vlahovic, a coauthor of the recommendations. For pediatric patients, there are approved topical medications: Efinaconazole and tavaborole for ages 6 and up and ciclopirox for ages 12 years or older.

Treatment recommendations for adults vary based on clinical presentation and patient characteristics. Questions to consider: Are they older? Do they have diabetes? Are they able to reach their feet to apply medication? What other medications are they taking? Are there any kidney or liver issues that are cause for concern?

Another question to consider is whether they have concurrent nail psoriasis. “When I have those patients, I often treat the onychomycosis first and the nail psoriasis second,” she said.

 

Evidence for Lasers Weak

Though laser therapy is FDA approved for the temporary increase of clear nails in onychomycosis, Vlahovic is underwhelmed by the evidence of its use for onychomycosis. According to a systematic review of 261 studies, only 1 reported treatment success as 16.7%, and clinical cures ranged from 13% to 16%. “Many of the existing studies were so poorly done in terms of protocols; it was frustrating,” she said. “No study has reported complete cure. There’s a lack of standardization across laser companies and a lack of standardization across protocols.”

Before starting oral antifungal therapy, Vlahovic uses the Onychomycosis Severity Index to determine the number of nails involved and the proportion of nails that are affected. She also wants to know if the patient is taking any medication that might interfere with an oral antifungal and gets baseline liver function tests (LFTs) to document results in the chart. “You want to discuss the pros and cons of oral antifungal therapy, and you want to set realistic expectations,” she added. “These medications are not cosmetic products; they are meant to kill fungus. Sometimes patients lose sight of that.”

Vlahovic routinely offers pulse dosing of terbinafine, which is FDA approved at a dose of 250 mg/d for 90 days. Pulse dosing involves taking terbinafine 250 mg twice a day for 1 week, followed by a 3-week break. This cycle is repeated three or four times. A clinical trial found no significant difference in outcome between patients who received pulsed vs continuous terbinafine dosing for the treatment of dermatophyte onychomycosis.

 

What About Oral Antifungal Safety?

For patients who ask about the safety of oral antifungals, Vlahovic characterized them as “well tolerated and safe in an immunocompetent population.” In a meta-analysis of 122 studies of about 22,000 patients, the pooled risk for treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 3.4% for terbinafine 250 mg/d and 4.21% for itraconazole 200 mg/d. The risk for liver injury requiring termination of treatment and the risk of having symptomatic elevation of LFTs were less than 2% for all regimens.

According to the best available published evidence, Vlahovic said, the onychomycosis recurrence rate ranges from 6% to 40%. “That’s a wild number. We really have no idea what the true recurrence rate is, and that’s a problem.”

Vlahovic disclosed having been a consultant to and an investigator for Ortho Dermatologics and Sagis Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS — Onychomycosis, a stubborn fungal infection of the nail bed, is responsible for half of all nail diseases and presents a tricky challenge when it comes to both diagnosis and treatment.

According to Tracey C. Vlahovic, DPM, a professor at the Samuel Merritt University College of Podiatric Medicine, Oakland, California, most cases of onychomycosis are caused by the dermatophytes Trichophyton rubrum and T mentagrophytes, although the cause can also be a mixed infection. “Dermatophytes are going to impact the nails first, and molds may come in and join the party later,” she said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference.

 

“The distal subungual onychomycosis (DSO) type is still the most common, but don’t forget that onychomycosis and nail psoriasis can happen at the same time. What we can’t lose sight of is that onychomycosis is a disease of the nail bed, which ultimately affects the nail plate; it’s not a disease of the nail plate first.”

Her diagnostic approach combines periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining with fungal culture “because I like to know the speciation,” she said. “PAS doesn’t give me the speciation; fungal cultures should. PCR can be expensive, but that can give me speciation.”

 

How Does This Happen?

Fungal DSO occurs because of exposure to a dermatophyte, which can be as simple as tinea pedis. “Perhaps it’s the environment in the shoe,” said Vlahovic, one of the authors of a textbook on onychomycosis. “That’s something I’m always concentrating on with the patient. What is your foot hygiene like? What’s your shoe and sock wear? What’s your level of physical activity? You can have trauma to the hyponychium, where the skin and the nail meet. Maybe they trim their nails too close to the skin, or maybe there’s another skin condition like psoriasis.”

The dermatophyte, she continued, enters and invades the nail at the hyponychium and uses the keratinase enzyme to digest keratin in the nail bed. Mild inflammation develops, and pH changes cause focal parakeratosis and subungual hyperkeratosis in the form of onycholysis and subungual debris. “Hyphae then invade the lamina of the nail plate, which causes brittle nails,” she said. “The compromised hyponychium creates a reservoir for molds and bacteria.”

Therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for onychomycosis include the topical agents efinaconazole, tavaborole, and ciclopirox; the oral agents terbinafine and itraconazole; and laser therapy. Off-label, Vlahovic said that she sometimes uses oral fluconazole, pulsed dosing for terbinafine, and booster doses of terbinafine or any approved oral antifungal agent. Pulse dosing for itraconazole is FDA-approved for fingernails but not for toenails.

“We don’t have any oral antifungals that are approved for children, but we do have weight-based dosing,” she noted. Other off-label treatments for onychomycosis that patients may come across while browsing the internet but do not penetrate the nail plate, include products containing tolnaftate, tree oil, and undecylenic acid, “which is a very long-chain antifungal,” Vlahovic said. “It’s so huge that it can’t get through the nail plate. These products must get through the nail plate into the nail bed where the infection is.”

According to therapeutic recommendations for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in the United States, published in 2021, terbinafine is the primary choice for oral treatment and efinaconazole 10% for topical treatment. There are no current treatment recommendations for pregnant or lactating patients. “I always defer to the obstetrician,” said Vlahovic, a coauthor of the recommendations. For pediatric patients, there are approved topical medications: Efinaconazole and tavaborole for ages 6 and up and ciclopirox for ages 12 years or older.

Treatment recommendations for adults vary based on clinical presentation and patient characteristics. Questions to consider: Are they older? Do they have diabetes? Are they able to reach their feet to apply medication? What other medications are they taking? Are there any kidney or liver issues that are cause for concern?

Another question to consider is whether they have concurrent nail psoriasis. “When I have those patients, I often treat the onychomycosis first and the nail psoriasis second,” she said.

 

Evidence for Lasers Weak

Though laser therapy is FDA approved for the temporary increase of clear nails in onychomycosis, Vlahovic is underwhelmed by the evidence of its use for onychomycosis. According to a systematic review of 261 studies, only 1 reported treatment success as 16.7%, and clinical cures ranged from 13% to 16%. “Many of the existing studies were so poorly done in terms of protocols; it was frustrating,” she said. “No study has reported complete cure. There’s a lack of standardization across laser companies and a lack of standardization across protocols.”

Before starting oral antifungal therapy, Vlahovic uses the Onychomycosis Severity Index to determine the number of nails involved and the proportion of nails that are affected. She also wants to know if the patient is taking any medication that might interfere with an oral antifungal and gets baseline liver function tests (LFTs) to document results in the chart. “You want to discuss the pros and cons of oral antifungal therapy, and you want to set realistic expectations,” she added. “These medications are not cosmetic products; they are meant to kill fungus. Sometimes patients lose sight of that.”

Vlahovic routinely offers pulse dosing of terbinafine, which is FDA approved at a dose of 250 mg/d for 90 days. Pulse dosing involves taking terbinafine 250 mg twice a day for 1 week, followed by a 3-week break. This cycle is repeated three or four times. A clinical trial found no significant difference in outcome between patients who received pulsed vs continuous terbinafine dosing for the treatment of dermatophyte onychomycosis.

 

What About Oral Antifungal Safety?

For patients who ask about the safety of oral antifungals, Vlahovic characterized them as “well tolerated and safe in an immunocompetent population.” In a meta-analysis of 122 studies of about 22,000 patients, the pooled risk for treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 3.4% for terbinafine 250 mg/d and 4.21% for itraconazole 200 mg/d. The risk for liver injury requiring termination of treatment and the risk of having symptomatic elevation of LFTs were less than 2% for all regimens.

According to the best available published evidence, Vlahovic said, the onychomycosis recurrence rate ranges from 6% to 40%. “That’s a wild number. We really have no idea what the true recurrence rate is, and that’s a problem.”

Vlahovic disclosed having been a consultant to and an investigator for Ortho Dermatologics and Sagis Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS — Onychomycosis, a stubborn fungal infection of the nail bed, is responsible for half of all nail diseases and presents a tricky challenge when it comes to both diagnosis and treatment.

According to Tracey C. Vlahovic, DPM, a professor at the Samuel Merritt University College of Podiatric Medicine, Oakland, California, most cases of onychomycosis are caused by the dermatophytes Trichophyton rubrum and T mentagrophytes, although the cause can also be a mixed infection. “Dermatophytes are going to impact the nails first, and molds may come in and join the party later,” she said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference.

 

“The distal subungual onychomycosis (DSO) type is still the most common, but don’t forget that onychomycosis and nail psoriasis can happen at the same time. What we can’t lose sight of is that onychomycosis is a disease of the nail bed, which ultimately affects the nail plate; it’s not a disease of the nail plate first.”

Her diagnostic approach combines periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining with fungal culture “because I like to know the speciation,” she said. “PAS doesn’t give me the speciation; fungal cultures should. PCR can be expensive, but that can give me speciation.”

 

How Does This Happen?

Fungal DSO occurs because of exposure to a dermatophyte, which can be as simple as tinea pedis. “Perhaps it’s the environment in the shoe,” said Vlahovic, one of the authors of a textbook on onychomycosis. “That’s something I’m always concentrating on with the patient. What is your foot hygiene like? What’s your shoe and sock wear? What’s your level of physical activity? You can have trauma to the hyponychium, where the skin and the nail meet. Maybe they trim their nails too close to the skin, or maybe there’s another skin condition like psoriasis.”

The dermatophyte, she continued, enters and invades the nail at the hyponychium and uses the keratinase enzyme to digest keratin in the nail bed. Mild inflammation develops, and pH changes cause focal parakeratosis and subungual hyperkeratosis in the form of onycholysis and subungual debris. “Hyphae then invade the lamina of the nail plate, which causes brittle nails,” she said. “The compromised hyponychium creates a reservoir for molds and bacteria.”

Therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for onychomycosis include the topical agents efinaconazole, tavaborole, and ciclopirox; the oral agents terbinafine and itraconazole; and laser therapy. Off-label, Vlahovic said that she sometimes uses oral fluconazole, pulsed dosing for terbinafine, and booster doses of terbinafine or any approved oral antifungal agent. Pulse dosing for itraconazole is FDA-approved for fingernails but not for toenails.

“We don’t have any oral antifungals that are approved for children, but we do have weight-based dosing,” she noted. Other off-label treatments for onychomycosis that patients may come across while browsing the internet but do not penetrate the nail plate, include products containing tolnaftate, tree oil, and undecylenic acid, “which is a very long-chain antifungal,” Vlahovic said. “It’s so huge that it can’t get through the nail plate. These products must get through the nail plate into the nail bed where the infection is.”

According to therapeutic recommendations for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in the United States, published in 2021, terbinafine is the primary choice for oral treatment and efinaconazole 10% for topical treatment. There are no current treatment recommendations for pregnant or lactating patients. “I always defer to the obstetrician,” said Vlahovic, a coauthor of the recommendations. For pediatric patients, there are approved topical medications: Efinaconazole and tavaborole for ages 6 and up and ciclopirox for ages 12 years or older.

Treatment recommendations for adults vary based on clinical presentation and patient characteristics. Questions to consider: Are they older? Do they have diabetes? Are they able to reach their feet to apply medication? What other medications are they taking? Are there any kidney or liver issues that are cause for concern?

Another question to consider is whether they have concurrent nail psoriasis. “When I have those patients, I often treat the onychomycosis first and the nail psoriasis second,” she said.

 

Evidence for Lasers Weak

Though laser therapy is FDA approved for the temporary increase of clear nails in onychomycosis, Vlahovic is underwhelmed by the evidence of its use for onychomycosis. According to a systematic review of 261 studies, only 1 reported treatment success as 16.7%, and clinical cures ranged from 13% to 16%. “Many of the existing studies were so poorly done in terms of protocols; it was frustrating,” she said. “No study has reported complete cure. There’s a lack of standardization across laser companies and a lack of standardization across protocols.”

Before starting oral antifungal therapy, Vlahovic uses the Onychomycosis Severity Index to determine the number of nails involved and the proportion of nails that are affected. She also wants to know if the patient is taking any medication that might interfere with an oral antifungal and gets baseline liver function tests (LFTs) to document results in the chart. “You want to discuss the pros and cons of oral antifungal therapy, and you want to set realistic expectations,” she added. “These medications are not cosmetic products; they are meant to kill fungus. Sometimes patients lose sight of that.”

Vlahovic routinely offers pulse dosing of terbinafine, which is FDA approved at a dose of 250 mg/d for 90 days. Pulse dosing involves taking terbinafine 250 mg twice a day for 1 week, followed by a 3-week break. This cycle is repeated three or four times. A clinical trial found no significant difference in outcome between patients who received pulsed vs continuous terbinafine dosing for the treatment of dermatophyte onychomycosis.

 

What About Oral Antifungal Safety?

For patients who ask about the safety of oral antifungals, Vlahovic characterized them as “well tolerated and safe in an immunocompetent population.” In a meta-analysis of 122 studies of about 22,000 patients, the pooled risk for treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 3.4% for terbinafine 250 mg/d and 4.21% for itraconazole 200 mg/d. The risk for liver injury requiring termination of treatment and the risk of having symptomatic elevation of LFTs were less than 2% for all regimens.

According to the best available published evidence, Vlahovic said, the onychomycosis recurrence rate ranges from 6% to 40%. “That’s a wild number. We really have no idea what the true recurrence rate is, and that’s a problem.”

Vlahovic disclosed having been a consultant to and an investigator for Ortho Dermatologics and Sagis Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The drug survival for adalimumab is significantly higher than that of infliximab in pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), results from a small single-center study showed.

A previous study found that overall drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in adults with HS at 12 and 24 months was 56.3% and 30.5%, and 58.3% and 48.6%, respectively. “They also found that older age, longer disease duration, higher body mass index (BMI), and surgery during treatment are associated with increased drug survival,” Robyn Guo, a third-year medical student at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization following the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “To our knowledge, the drug survival of biologic therapies in pediatric HS patients has not been previously investigated.”

Adalimumab and infliximab are tumor necrosis factor blockers approved for multiple indications; adalimumab is approved for treating moderate to severe HS in patients aged 12 years or older. Infliximab is not approved for HS but is used to treat the disease.

To determine the drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in pediatric patients with HS and whether patient comorbidities and HS lesion location are associated with length of biologic survival in pediatric patients with HS, Guo and colleagues used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate biologic survival at 12 and 24 months following biologic initiation and Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze potential factors associated with biologic survival. The study population included 49 pediatric patients in the adalimumab cohort and 11 in the infliximab cohort.

The researchers found that drug survival for adalimumab was 90.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 83.0%-98.8%) and 78.3% at 24 months (95% CI, 67.7%-90.6%), while drug survival for infliximab was 54.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 31.8%-93.6%) and 36.4% at 24 months, an overall difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0009). “Our data suggests that adalimumab survival is significantly higher than infliximab survival in pediatric HS patients,” Guo said.

On univariate Cox regression analysis, gluteal HS lesions were associated with shorter adalimumab survival, and obesity was associated with longer infliximab survival.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including the small sample size and that unadjusted Cox regression analysis did not account for baseline HS severity, biologic therapy dosing, and concomitant medication use. Also, there were patients in both cohorts who were not biologic-naive: Two in the adalimumab cohort were previously treated with infliximab, and five patients in the infliximab cohort were previously treated with adalimumab.

“We plan on conducting further analysis using adjusted Cox regression analysis to account for baseline disease severity measured by Hurley stage, BMI, medication dosing, and concomitant medication use,” Guo said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The drug survival for adalimumab is significantly higher than that of infliximab in pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), results from a small single-center study showed.

A previous study found that overall drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in adults with HS at 12 and 24 months was 56.3% and 30.5%, and 58.3% and 48.6%, respectively. “They also found that older age, longer disease duration, higher body mass index (BMI), and surgery during treatment are associated with increased drug survival,” Robyn Guo, a third-year medical student at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization following the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “To our knowledge, the drug survival of biologic therapies in pediatric HS patients has not been previously investigated.”

Adalimumab and infliximab are tumor necrosis factor blockers approved for multiple indications; adalimumab is approved for treating moderate to severe HS in patients aged 12 years or older. Infliximab is not approved for HS but is used to treat the disease.

To determine the drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in pediatric patients with HS and whether patient comorbidities and HS lesion location are associated with length of biologic survival in pediatric patients with HS, Guo and colleagues used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate biologic survival at 12 and 24 months following biologic initiation and Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze potential factors associated with biologic survival. The study population included 49 pediatric patients in the adalimumab cohort and 11 in the infliximab cohort.

The researchers found that drug survival for adalimumab was 90.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 83.0%-98.8%) and 78.3% at 24 months (95% CI, 67.7%-90.6%), while drug survival for infliximab was 54.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 31.8%-93.6%) and 36.4% at 24 months, an overall difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0009). “Our data suggests that adalimumab survival is significantly higher than infliximab survival in pediatric HS patients,” Guo said.

On univariate Cox regression analysis, gluteal HS lesions were associated with shorter adalimumab survival, and obesity was associated with longer infliximab survival.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including the small sample size and that unadjusted Cox regression analysis did not account for baseline HS severity, biologic therapy dosing, and concomitant medication use. Also, there were patients in both cohorts who were not biologic-naive: Two in the adalimumab cohort were previously treated with infliximab, and five patients in the infliximab cohort were previously treated with adalimumab.

“We plan on conducting further analysis using adjusted Cox regression analysis to account for baseline disease severity measured by Hurley stage, BMI, medication dosing, and concomitant medication use,” Guo said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The drug survival for adalimumab is significantly higher than that of infliximab in pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), results from a small single-center study showed.

A previous study found that overall drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in adults with HS at 12 and 24 months was 56.3% and 30.5%, and 58.3% and 48.6%, respectively. “They also found that older age, longer disease duration, higher body mass index (BMI), and surgery during treatment are associated with increased drug survival,” Robyn Guo, a third-year medical student at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization following the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “To our knowledge, the drug survival of biologic therapies in pediatric HS patients has not been previously investigated.”

Adalimumab and infliximab are tumor necrosis factor blockers approved for multiple indications; adalimumab is approved for treating moderate to severe HS in patients aged 12 years or older. Infliximab is not approved for HS but is used to treat the disease.

To determine the drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in pediatric patients with HS and whether patient comorbidities and HS lesion location are associated with length of biologic survival in pediatric patients with HS, Guo and colleagues used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate biologic survival at 12 and 24 months following biologic initiation and Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze potential factors associated with biologic survival. The study population included 49 pediatric patients in the adalimumab cohort and 11 in the infliximab cohort.

The researchers found that drug survival for adalimumab was 90.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 83.0%-98.8%) and 78.3% at 24 months (95% CI, 67.7%-90.6%), while drug survival for infliximab was 54.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 31.8%-93.6%) and 36.4% at 24 months, an overall difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0009). “Our data suggests that adalimumab survival is significantly higher than infliximab survival in pediatric HS patients,” Guo said.

On univariate Cox regression analysis, gluteal HS lesions were associated with shorter adalimumab survival, and obesity was associated with longer infliximab survival.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including the small sample size and that unadjusted Cox regression analysis did not account for baseline HS severity, biologic therapy dosing, and concomitant medication use. Also, there were patients in both cohorts who were not biologic-naive: Two in the adalimumab cohort were previously treated with infliximab, and five patients in the infliximab cohort were previously treated with adalimumab.

“We plan on conducting further analysis using adjusted Cox regression analysis to account for baseline disease severity measured by Hurley stage, BMI, medication dosing, and concomitant medication use,” Guo said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It has been three and a half years since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age to start colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, two major medical groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians — felt that the evidence was insufficient to support this change. 

Did doctors adjust their screening practices? A recent study suggests that they have. Comparing CRC screening rates in more than 10 million adults aged 45-49 during the 20 months preceding and 20 months following the USPSTF recommendation, researchers found significant increases during the latter time period, with the greatest increases among persons of high socioeconomic status or living in metropolitan areas.

Another study addressed concerns that younger adults may be less likely to follow up on positive screening results or more likely to have false positives on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients aged 45-49 years were slightly less likely to have a positive FIT result than 50-year-olds, but they had similar rates of colonoscopy completion and similar percentages of abnormal findings on colonoscopy.

Although the sensitivity and specificity of FIT varies quite a bit across different test brands, its overall effectiveness at reducing colorectal cancer deaths is well established. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved three new screening options: a blood-based screening test (Shield), a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard Plus), and a multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense) with similar performance characteristics as Cologuard Plus. The latter two tests will become available early next year.

This profusion of noninvasive options for CRC screening will challenge those tasked with developing the next iteration of the USPSTF recommendations. Not only must future guidelines establish what evidence threshold is sufficient to recommend a new screening strategy, but they also will need to consider the population-level consequences of relative utilization of different tests. For example, a cost-effectiveness analysis found that more CRC deaths would occur if people who would have otherwise accepted colonoscopy or fecal tests chose to be screened with Shield instead; however, this negative outcome could be offset if for every three of these test substitutions, two other people chose Shield who would otherwise have not been screened at all.

In the meantime, it is important for primary care clinicians to be familiar with evidence-based intervals for CRC screening tests and test eligibility criteria. A troubling study of patients who completed a multitarget stool DNA test in a Midwestern health system in 2021 found that more than one in five had the test ordered inappropriately, based on USPSTF guidelines. Reasons for inappropriate testing included having had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years, a family history of CRC, symptoms suggestive of possible CRC, age younger than 45, and a prior diagnosis of colonic adenomas. 

Just as a medication works best when the patient takes it as prescribed, a CRC screening test is most likely to yield more benefit than harm when it’s provided to the right patient at the right time.

Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

It has been three and a half years since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age to start colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, two major medical groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians — felt that the evidence was insufficient to support this change. 

Did doctors adjust their screening practices? A recent study suggests that they have. Comparing CRC screening rates in more than 10 million adults aged 45-49 during the 20 months preceding and 20 months following the USPSTF recommendation, researchers found significant increases during the latter time period, with the greatest increases among persons of high socioeconomic status or living in metropolitan areas.

Another study addressed concerns that younger adults may be less likely to follow up on positive screening results or more likely to have false positives on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients aged 45-49 years were slightly less likely to have a positive FIT result than 50-year-olds, but they had similar rates of colonoscopy completion and similar percentages of abnormal findings on colonoscopy.

Although the sensitivity and specificity of FIT varies quite a bit across different test brands, its overall effectiveness at reducing colorectal cancer deaths is well established. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved three new screening options: a blood-based screening test (Shield), a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard Plus), and a multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense) with similar performance characteristics as Cologuard Plus. The latter two tests will become available early next year.

This profusion of noninvasive options for CRC screening will challenge those tasked with developing the next iteration of the USPSTF recommendations. Not only must future guidelines establish what evidence threshold is sufficient to recommend a new screening strategy, but they also will need to consider the population-level consequences of relative utilization of different tests. For example, a cost-effectiveness analysis found that more CRC deaths would occur if people who would have otherwise accepted colonoscopy or fecal tests chose to be screened with Shield instead; however, this negative outcome could be offset if for every three of these test substitutions, two other people chose Shield who would otherwise have not been screened at all.

In the meantime, it is important for primary care clinicians to be familiar with evidence-based intervals for CRC screening tests and test eligibility criteria. A troubling study of patients who completed a multitarget stool DNA test in a Midwestern health system in 2021 found that more than one in five had the test ordered inappropriately, based on USPSTF guidelines. Reasons for inappropriate testing included having had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years, a family history of CRC, symptoms suggestive of possible CRC, age younger than 45, and a prior diagnosis of colonic adenomas. 

Just as a medication works best when the patient takes it as prescribed, a CRC screening test is most likely to yield more benefit than harm when it’s provided to the right patient at the right time.

Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

It has been three and a half years since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age to start colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, two major medical groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians — felt that the evidence was insufficient to support this change. 

Did doctors adjust their screening practices? A recent study suggests that they have. Comparing CRC screening rates in more than 10 million adults aged 45-49 during the 20 months preceding and 20 months following the USPSTF recommendation, researchers found significant increases during the latter time period, with the greatest increases among persons of high socioeconomic status or living in metropolitan areas.

Another study addressed concerns that younger adults may be less likely to follow up on positive screening results or more likely to have false positives on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients aged 45-49 years were slightly less likely to have a positive FIT result than 50-year-olds, but they had similar rates of colonoscopy completion and similar percentages of abnormal findings on colonoscopy.

Although the sensitivity and specificity of FIT varies quite a bit across different test brands, its overall effectiveness at reducing colorectal cancer deaths is well established. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved three new screening options: a blood-based screening test (Shield), a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard Plus), and a multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense) with similar performance characteristics as Cologuard Plus. The latter two tests will become available early next year.

This profusion of noninvasive options for CRC screening will challenge those tasked with developing the next iteration of the USPSTF recommendations. Not only must future guidelines establish what evidence threshold is sufficient to recommend a new screening strategy, but they also will need to consider the population-level consequences of relative utilization of different tests. For example, a cost-effectiveness analysis found that more CRC deaths would occur if people who would have otherwise accepted colonoscopy or fecal tests chose to be screened with Shield instead; however, this negative outcome could be offset if for every three of these test substitutions, two other people chose Shield who would otherwise have not been screened at all.

In the meantime, it is important for primary care clinicians to be familiar with evidence-based intervals for CRC screening tests and test eligibility criteria. A troubling study of patients who completed a multitarget stool DNA test in a Midwestern health system in 2021 found that more than one in five had the test ordered inappropriately, based on USPSTF guidelines. Reasons for inappropriate testing included having had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years, a family history of CRC, symptoms suggestive of possible CRC, age younger than 45, and a prior diagnosis of colonic adenomas. 

Just as a medication works best when the patient takes it as prescribed, a CRC screening test is most likely to yield more benefit than harm when it’s provided to the right patient at the right time.

Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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