Conference Coverage

Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, will never forget the day when the center of her vision became blurry after performing cutaneous laser surgery.

The laser light reflected off the patient’s protective eye shield and caused a photo-induced foveal injury to Dr. Kilmer’s eye even though she was wearing protective goggles. “It was like the central part of my vision was browned out,” Dr. Kilmer, director of the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, recalled during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “My injury completely resolved, but you may not get so lucky. You can really get into trouble with longer pulse widths and higher-energy lasers.”

The injury occurred, she said, because the goggles she wore were sufficient for 1,064-nm wavelengths, but she was treating the patient with a 532 nm–wavelength laser. “I did not have the protection I needed,” she said. “You have to make sure to check the glasses yourself before you treat so that what happened to me doesn’t happen to you.”

Dr. Kilmer, who is also a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, Davis, said that during cutaneous laser surgery, “we want to pay attention all the time to minimize our risk.” She also recommended to make sure “all personnel in the room have had good safety training and have baseline eye exams. The door needs to be closed. The windows need to be covered, and you need a warning sign on the door that contains the specific wavelength, pulse width, and energy being used.”

The most important element of the sign, she added, pertains to the wavelength, because that determines the most appropriate goggles or eyewear to use “to ensure that you have an optical density high enough to protect your eyes.”

She advised using only eyewear designed for the specific laser wavelength being used, and to check the optical density prior to firing the laser. “You want the optical density to be greater than 4-6; you want as much protection as possible,” Dr. Kilmer said. “If you’re using a 1,064-nm laser and a 532-nm laser, you want glasses that protect you from both of those wavelengths. Multi- and dual-wavelength glasses are now available. The newer eyewear also allows you to see much better so there’s less risk with you taking it off the goggles [during the procedure].”

Dr. Kilmer recommends keeping a set of goggles outside of the procedure room door that matches every set of goggles being used in the room. “In one room, you may have several different lasers,” she said. “So you want some way to ‘attach’ the goggles to that particular laser, whether it’s a tray or some type of a coding system – some way to keep those together.”

For eye shield protection, the David-Baker lid clamp and the Jaeger plate are appropriate for ablative laser resurfacing, but most dermatologists use individual steel eye shields that are placed externally or internally. “Make sure you have different-sized eye shields on hand,” she advised during the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth? and sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

“Depending on what you’re performing, you will need anywhere from neonate size to larger adult size. Some adults may require child-size shields,” she said, noting that there are external eye shields that can be cleaned after each use. “But we tend to use LASER-Aid disposable eye shields, which have metal in the middle and stick over the eyelid. You only use these when you’re working outside of the orbital rim. If you’re treating within the orbital rim, you have to use an internal eye shield.”

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, will never forget the day when the center of her vision became blurry after performing cutaneous laser surgery.

The laser light reflected off the patient’s protective eye shield and caused a photo-induced foveal injury to Dr. Kilmer’s eye even though she was wearing protective goggles. “It was like the central part of my vision was browned out,” Dr. Kilmer, director of the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, recalled during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “My injury completely resolved, but you may not get so lucky. You can really get into trouble with longer pulse widths and higher-energy lasers.”

The injury occurred, she said, because the goggles she wore were sufficient for 1,064-nm wavelengths, but she was treating the patient with a 532 nm–wavelength laser. “I did not have the protection I needed,” she said. “You have to make sure to check the glasses yourself before you treat so that what happened to me doesn’t happen to you.”

Dr. Kilmer, who is also a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, Davis, said that during cutaneous laser surgery, “we want to pay attention all the time to minimize our risk.” She also recommended to make sure “all personnel in the room have had good safety training and have baseline eye exams. The door needs to be closed. The windows need to be covered, and you need a warning sign on the door that contains the specific wavelength, pulse width, and energy being used.”

The most important element of the sign, she added, pertains to the wavelength, because that determines the most appropriate goggles or eyewear to use “to ensure that you have an optical density high enough to protect your eyes.”

She advised using only eyewear designed for the specific laser wavelength being used, and to check the optical density prior to firing the laser. “You want the optical density to be greater than 4-6; you want as much protection as possible,” Dr. Kilmer said. “If you’re using a 1,064-nm laser and a 532-nm laser, you want glasses that protect you from both of those wavelengths. Multi- and dual-wavelength glasses are now available. The newer eyewear also allows you to see much better so there’s less risk with you taking it off the goggles [during the procedure].”

Dr. Kilmer recommends keeping a set of goggles outside of the procedure room door that matches every set of goggles being used in the room. “In one room, you may have several different lasers,” she said. “So you want some way to ‘attach’ the goggles to that particular laser, whether it’s a tray or some type of a coding system – some way to keep those together.”

For eye shield protection, the David-Baker lid clamp and the Jaeger plate are appropriate for ablative laser resurfacing, but most dermatologists use individual steel eye shields that are placed externally or internally. “Make sure you have different-sized eye shields on hand,” she advised during the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth? and sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

“Depending on what you’re performing, you will need anywhere from neonate size to larger adult size. Some adults may require child-size shields,” she said, noting that there are external eye shields that can be cleaned after each use. “But we tend to use LASER-Aid disposable eye shields, which have metal in the middle and stick over the eyelid. You only use these when you’re working outside of the orbital rim. If you’re treating within the orbital rim, you have to use an internal eye shield.”

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, will never forget the day when the center of her vision became blurry after performing cutaneous laser surgery.

The laser light reflected off the patient’s protective eye shield and caused a photo-induced foveal injury to Dr. Kilmer’s eye even though she was wearing protective goggles. “It was like the central part of my vision was browned out,” Dr. Kilmer, director of the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, recalled during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “My injury completely resolved, but you may not get so lucky. You can really get into trouble with longer pulse widths and higher-energy lasers.”

The injury occurred, she said, because the goggles she wore were sufficient for 1,064-nm wavelengths, but she was treating the patient with a 532 nm–wavelength laser. “I did not have the protection I needed,” she said. “You have to make sure to check the glasses yourself before you treat so that what happened to me doesn’t happen to you.”

Dr. Kilmer, who is also a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, Davis, said that during cutaneous laser surgery, “we want to pay attention all the time to minimize our risk.” She also recommended to make sure “all personnel in the room have had good safety training and have baseline eye exams. The door needs to be closed. The windows need to be covered, and you need a warning sign on the door that contains the specific wavelength, pulse width, and energy being used.”

The most important element of the sign, she added, pertains to the wavelength, because that determines the most appropriate goggles or eyewear to use “to ensure that you have an optical density high enough to protect your eyes.”

She advised using only eyewear designed for the specific laser wavelength being used, and to check the optical density prior to firing the laser. “You want the optical density to be greater than 4-6; you want as much protection as possible,” Dr. Kilmer said. “If you’re using a 1,064-nm laser and a 532-nm laser, you want glasses that protect you from both of those wavelengths. Multi- and dual-wavelength glasses are now available. The newer eyewear also allows you to see much better so there’s less risk with you taking it off the goggles [during the procedure].”

Dr. Kilmer recommends keeping a set of goggles outside of the procedure room door that matches every set of goggles being used in the room. “In one room, you may have several different lasers,” she said. “So you want some way to ‘attach’ the goggles to that particular laser, whether it’s a tray or some type of a coding system – some way to keep those together.”

For eye shield protection, the David-Baker lid clamp and the Jaeger plate are appropriate for ablative laser resurfacing, but most dermatologists use individual steel eye shields that are placed externally or internally. “Make sure you have different-sized eye shields on hand,” she advised during the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth? and sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

“Depending on what you’re performing, you will need anywhere from neonate size to larger adult size. Some adults may require child-size shields,” she said, noting that there are external eye shields that can be cleaned after each use. “But we tend to use LASER-Aid disposable eye shields, which have metal in the middle and stick over the eyelid. You only use these when you’re working outside of the orbital rim. If you’re treating within the orbital rim, you have to use an internal eye shield.”

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

A combination of droperidol and midazolam was more effective than haloperidol plus lorazepam for achieving sedation in agitated patients in an emergency department setting in a study involving 86 adult patients at a single tertiary medical care center.

Patients with acute agitation present significant safety concerns in the emergency department, according to Jessica Javed, MD, of the University of Louisville (Ky.) and colleagues.

A combination of haloperidol and lorazepam has been widely used to curb agitation in these patients, but droperidol and midazolam could be more effective, owing to faster onset of action, Dr. Javed noted in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Dr. Javed and colleagues conducted a prospective study to compare time to adequate sedation in agitated patients in the ED. In the trial, 43 patients received droperidol 5 mg plus midazolam 5 mg, and 43 patients received haloperidol plus lorazepam 2 mg. The average age of the patients in the droperidol/midazolam group was 34 years; the average age of the patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group was 38 years. Baseline demographics, including height, weight, body mass index, and baseline Sedation Assessment Tool (SAT) scores, were similar between the groups.

The SAT score scale ranges from +3 (combative, violent, or out of control) to –3 (no response to stimulation); zero indicates being awake and calm/cooperative. The median baseline SAT score was 3 for both treatment groups.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with adequate sedation (defined as SAT scores of ≤0) 10 min after treatment.

Significantly more patients in the droperidol/midazolam group met this outcome, compared with the patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group (51.2% vs. 7%). Also, significantly more patients in the droperidol/midazolam group achieved adequate sedation at 5, 10, 15, and 30 min than in the haloperidol/lorazepam group.

Fewer patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group required supplemental oxygen, compared with the droperidol/midazolam group (9.3% vs. 25.6%). However, none of the droperidol/midazolam patients required rescue sedation, compared with 16.3% of the haloperidol/lorazepam patients, Dr. Javed noted. None of the patients required endotracheal intubation or experienced extrapyramidal symptoms, she said.

The study was limited by the small sample size and inclusion of data from only a single center.

The results suggest that droperidol/midazolam is superior to intramuscular haloperidol/lorazepam for producing adequate sedation after 10 min in agitated patients, Dr. Javed concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A combination of droperidol and midazolam was more effective than haloperidol plus lorazepam for achieving sedation in agitated patients in an emergency department setting in a study involving 86 adult patients at a single tertiary medical care center.

Patients with acute agitation present significant safety concerns in the emergency department, according to Jessica Javed, MD, of the University of Louisville (Ky.) and colleagues.

A combination of haloperidol and lorazepam has been widely used to curb agitation in these patients, but droperidol and midazolam could be more effective, owing to faster onset of action, Dr. Javed noted in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Dr. Javed and colleagues conducted a prospective study to compare time to adequate sedation in agitated patients in the ED. In the trial, 43 patients received droperidol 5 mg plus midazolam 5 mg, and 43 patients received haloperidol plus lorazepam 2 mg. The average age of the patients in the droperidol/midazolam group was 34 years; the average age of the patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group was 38 years. Baseline demographics, including height, weight, body mass index, and baseline Sedation Assessment Tool (SAT) scores, were similar between the groups.

The SAT score scale ranges from +3 (combative, violent, or out of control) to –3 (no response to stimulation); zero indicates being awake and calm/cooperative. The median baseline SAT score was 3 for both treatment groups.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with adequate sedation (defined as SAT scores of ≤0) 10 min after treatment.

Significantly more patients in the droperidol/midazolam group met this outcome, compared with the patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group (51.2% vs. 7%). Also, significantly more patients in the droperidol/midazolam group achieved adequate sedation at 5, 10, 15, and 30 min than in the haloperidol/lorazepam group.

Fewer patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group required supplemental oxygen, compared with the droperidol/midazolam group (9.3% vs. 25.6%). However, none of the droperidol/midazolam patients required rescue sedation, compared with 16.3% of the haloperidol/lorazepam patients, Dr. Javed noted. None of the patients required endotracheal intubation or experienced extrapyramidal symptoms, she said.

The study was limited by the small sample size and inclusion of data from only a single center.

The results suggest that droperidol/midazolam is superior to intramuscular haloperidol/lorazepam for producing adequate sedation after 10 min in agitated patients, Dr. Javed concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A combination of droperidol and midazolam was more effective than haloperidol plus lorazepam for achieving sedation in agitated patients in an emergency department setting in a study involving 86 adult patients at a single tertiary medical care center.

Patients with acute agitation present significant safety concerns in the emergency department, according to Jessica Javed, MD, of the University of Louisville (Ky.) and colleagues.

A combination of haloperidol and lorazepam has been widely used to curb agitation in these patients, but droperidol and midazolam could be more effective, owing to faster onset of action, Dr. Javed noted in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Dr. Javed and colleagues conducted a prospective study to compare time to adequate sedation in agitated patients in the ED. In the trial, 43 patients received droperidol 5 mg plus midazolam 5 mg, and 43 patients received haloperidol plus lorazepam 2 mg. The average age of the patients in the droperidol/midazolam group was 34 years; the average age of the patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group was 38 years. Baseline demographics, including height, weight, body mass index, and baseline Sedation Assessment Tool (SAT) scores, were similar between the groups.

The SAT score scale ranges from +3 (combative, violent, or out of control) to –3 (no response to stimulation); zero indicates being awake and calm/cooperative. The median baseline SAT score was 3 for both treatment groups.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with adequate sedation (defined as SAT scores of ≤0) 10 min after treatment.

Significantly more patients in the droperidol/midazolam group met this outcome, compared with the patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group (51.2% vs. 7%). Also, significantly more patients in the droperidol/midazolam group achieved adequate sedation at 5, 10, 15, and 30 min than in the haloperidol/lorazepam group.

Fewer patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group required supplemental oxygen, compared with the droperidol/midazolam group (9.3% vs. 25.6%). However, none of the droperidol/midazolam patients required rescue sedation, compared with 16.3% of the haloperidol/lorazepam patients, Dr. Javed noted. None of the patients required endotracheal intubation or experienced extrapyramidal symptoms, she said.

The study was limited by the small sample size and inclusion of data from only a single center.

The results suggest that droperidol/midazolam is superior to intramuscular haloperidol/lorazepam for producing adequate sedation after 10 min in agitated patients, Dr. Javed concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in three gay and bisexual men who were diagnosed with HIV at U.K. sexual health clinics didn’t meet the criteria for “high risk” that would signal to a clinician that they would be good candidates for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

And that means that people who appear lower risk may still be good candidates for the HIV prevention pills, said Ann Sullivan, MD, consulting physician at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“If people are coming forward for PrEP, they have self-identified that they need PrEP, [and] we should be allowing them to take PrEP,” said Dr. Sullivan at the 18th European AIDS Society Conference (EACS 2021). “We just need to trust patients. People know their risk, and we just have to accept that they know what they need best.”

And while this trial was made up of 95% gay and bisexual men, that ethos applies to every other group that could benefit from PrEP, including cisgender and transgender women and other gender-diverse people, Latinos, and Black Americans. In the United States, these groups make up nearly half of those who could benefit from PrEP under older guidelines but account for just 8% of people currently taking PrEP.

The finding also reinforces growing calls from health care providers to reduce gatekeeping around PrEP. For instance, there’s a move underway by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where drafts of updated PrEP guidelines call for clinicians to talk to any sexually active teenager and adult about PrEP.

For the PrEP Impact trial, gay and bisexual men who received sexual health care at UK National Health Service sexual health clinics were invited to enroll in the study based on national PrEP guidelines. Those guidelines included being a cisgender man who had had sex with men not currently living with HIV and reporting condomless anal sex in the last 3 months; having a male partner whose HIV status they don’t know or who doesn’t have an undetectable viral load and with whom they’ve had condomless anal sex; or someone who doesn’t reach those criteria but whom the clinician thinks would be a good candidate.

Between Oct. 2017 and Feb. 2020, a total of 17,770 gay and bisexual men and 503 transgender or nonbinary people enrolled in the trial and were paired with 97,098 gay and bisexual men who didn’t use PrEP. (Data from the transgender participants were reported in a separate presentation.) The median age was 27 years, with 14.4% of the cisgender gay men between the ages of 16 and 24. Three out of four cis men were White, most lived in London, and more than half came from very-low-income neighborhoods.

Participants and controls were assessed for whether they were at particularly high risk for acquiring HIV, such as having used PrEP, having had two or more HIV tests, having had a rectal bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI), or having had contact with someone with HIV or syphilis.

At the end of Feb. 2020, 24 cisgender men on PrEP had acquired HIV compared with 670 in the control group – an 87% reduction in HIV acquisition. Only one of those 24 cis men had lab-confirmed high adherence to PrEP. However, because the hair samples used to judge drug concentration weren’t long enough, Dr. Sullivan and colleagues were unable to assess whether the person really was fully adherent to treatment for the length of the trial.

But when they looked at the assessed behavior of people who acquired HIV, the two groups diverged. While a full 92% of people using PrEP had had STI diagnoses and other markers of increased risk, that was true for only 71% of people not taking PrEP. That meant, Dr. Sullivan said in an interview, that screening guidelines for PrEP were missing 29% of people with low assessed risk for HIV who nevertheless acquired the virus.

The findings led Antonio Urbina, MD, who both prescribes PrEP and manages Mount Sinai Medical Center’s PrEP program in New York, to the same conclusion that Dr. Sullivan and her team came to: that no screener is going to account for everything, and that there may be things that patients don’t want to tell their clinicians about their risk, either because of their own internalized stigma or their calculation that they aren’t comfortable enough with their providers to be honest.

“It reinforces to me that I need to ask more open-ended questions regarding risk and then just talk more about PrEP,” said Dr. Urbina, professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Risk is dynamic and changes. And the great thing about PrEP is that if the risk goes up or down, if you have PrEP on board, you maintain this protection against HIV.”

An accompanying presentation on the transgender and nonbinary participants in the Impact Trial found that just one of 503 PrEP users acquired HIV. But here, too, there were people who could have benefited from PrEP but didn’t take it: Of the 477 trans and nonbinary participants who acted as controls, 97 were eligible by current guidelines but didn’t take PrEP. One in four of those declined the offer to take PrEP; the rest weren’t able to take it because they lived outside the treatment area. That, combined with a significantly lower likelihood that Black trans and nonbinary people took PrEP, indicated that work needs to be done to address the needs of people geographically and ethnically.

The data on gay men also raised the “who’s left out” issue for Gina Simoncini, MD, medical director for the Philadelphia AIDS Healthcare Foundation Healthcare Center. Dr. Simoncini previously taught attending physicians at Temple University how to prescribe PrEP and has done many grand rounds for primary care providers on how to manage PrEP.

“My biggest issue with this data is: What about the people who aren’t going to sexual health clinics?” she said. “What about the kid who’s 16 and maybe just barely putting his feet into the waters of sex and doesn’t feel quite comfortable going to a sexual health clinic? What about the trans Indian girl who can’t get to sexual health clinics because of family stigma and cultural stigma? The more we move toward primary care, the more people need to get on board with this.”

Dr. Sullivan reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simoncini is an employee of AIDS Healthcare Foundation and has received advisory board fees from ViiV Healthcare. Dr. Urbina sits on the scientific advisory councils for Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck.

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

Nearly one in three gay and bisexual men who were diagnosed with HIV at U.K. sexual health clinics didn’t meet the criteria for “high risk” that would signal to a clinician that they would be good candidates for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

And that means that people who appear lower risk may still be good candidates for the HIV prevention pills, said Ann Sullivan, MD, consulting physician at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“If people are coming forward for PrEP, they have self-identified that they need PrEP, [and] we should be allowing them to take PrEP,” said Dr. Sullivan at the 18th European AIDS Society Conference (EACS 2021). “We just need to trust patients. People know their risk, and we just have to accept that they know what they need best.”

And while this trial was made up of 95% gay and bisexual men, that ethos applies to every other group that could benefit from PrEP, including cisgender and transgender women and other gender-diverse people, Latinos, and Black Americans. In the United States, these groups make up nearly half of those who could benefit from PrEP under older guidelines but account for just 8% of people currently taking PrEP.

The finding also reinforces growing calls from health care providers to reduce gatekeeping around PrEP. For instance, there’s a move underway by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where drafts of updated PrEP guidelines call for clinicians to talk to any sexually active teenager and adult about PrEP.

For the PrEP Impact trial, gay and bisexual men who received sexual health care at UK National Health Service sexual health clinics were invited to enroll in the study based on national PrEP guidelines. Those guidelines included being a cisgender man who had had sex with men not currently living with HIV and reporting condomless anal sex in the last 3 months; having a male partner whose HIV status they don’t know or who doesn’t have an undetectable viral load and with whom they’ve had condomless anal sex; or someone who doesn’t reach those criteria but whom the clinician thinks would be a good candidate.

Between Oct. 2017 and Feb. 2020, a total of 17,770 gay and bisexual men and 503 transgender or nonbinary people enrolled in the trial and were paired with 97,098 gay and bisexual men who didn’t use PrEP. (Data from the transgender participants were reported in a separate presentation.) The median age was 27 years, with 14.4% of the cisgender gay men between the ages of 16 and 24. Three out of four cis men were White, most lived in London, and more than half came from very-low-income neighborhoods.

Participants and controls were assessed for whether they were at particularly high risk for acquiring HIV, such as having used PrEP, having had two or more HIV tests, having had a rectal bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI), or having had contact with someone with HIV or syphilis.

At the end of Feb. 2020, 24 cisgender men on PrEP had acquired HIV compared with 670 in the control group – an 87% reduction in HIV acquisition. Only one of those 24 cis men had lab-confirmed high adherence to PrEP. However, because the hair samples used to judge drug concentration weren’t long enough, Dr. Sullivan and colleagues were unable to assess whether the person really was fully adherent to treatment for the length of the trial.

But when they looked at the assessed behavior of people who acquired HIV, the two groups diverged. While a full 92% of people using PrEP had had STI diagnoses and other markers of increased risk, that was true for only 71% of people not taking PrEP. That meant, Dr. Sullivan said in an interview, that screening guidelines for PrEP were missing 29% of people with low assessed risk for HIV who nevertheless acquired the virus.

The findings led Antonio Urbina, MD, who both prescribes PrEP and manages Mount Sinai Medical Center’s PrEP program in New York, to the same conclusion that Dr. Sullivan and her team came to: that no screener is going to account for everything, and that there may be things that patients don’t want to tell their clinicians about their risk, either because of their own internalized stigma or their calculation that they aren’t comfortable enough with their providers to be honest.

“It reinforces to me that I need to ask more open-ended questions regarding risk and then just talk more about PrEP,” said Dr. Urbina, professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Risk is dynamic and changes. And the great thing about PrEP is that if the risk goes up or down, if you have PrEP on board, you maintain this protection against HIV.”

An accompanying presentation on the transgender and nonbinary participants in the Impact Trial found that just one of 503 PrEP users acquired HIV. But here, too, there were people who could have benefited from PrEP but didn’t take it: Of the 477 trans and nonbinary participants who acted as controls, 97 were eligible by current guidelines but didn’t take PrEP. One in four of those declined the offer to take PrEP; the rest weren’t able to take it because they lived outside the treatment area. That, combined with a significantly lower likelihood that Black trans and nonbinary people took PrEP, indicated that work needs to be done to address the needs of people geographically and ethnically.

The data on gay men also raised the “who’s left out” issue for Gina Simoncini, MD, medical director for the Philadelphia AIDS Healthcare Foundation Healthcare Center. Dr. Simoncini previously taught attending physicians at Temple University how to prescribe PrEP and has done many grand rounds for primary care providers on how to manage PrEP.

“My biggest issue with this data is: What about the people who aren’t going to sexual health clinics?” she said. “What about the kid who’s 16 and maybe just barely putting his feet into the waters of sex and doesn’t feel quite comfortable going to a sexual health clinic? What about the trans Indian girl who can’t get to sexual health clinics because of family stigma and cultural stigma? The more we move toward primary care, the more people need to get on board with this.”

Dr. Sullivan reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simoncini is an employee of AIDS Healthcare Foundation and has received advisory board fees from ViiV Healthcare. Dr. Urbina sits on the scientific advisory councils for Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck.

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

Nearly one in three gay and bisexual men who were diagnosed with HIV at U.K. sexual health clinics didn’t meet the criteria for “high risk” that would signal to a clinician that they would be good candidates for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

And that means that people who appear lower risk may still be good candidates for the HIV prevention pills, said Ann Sullivan, MD, consulting physician at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“If people are coming forward for PrEP, they have self-identified that they need PrEP, [and] we should be allowing them to take PrEP,” said Dr. Sullivan at the 18th European AIDS Society Conference (EACS 2021). “We just need to trust patients. People know their risk, and we just have to accept that they know what they need best.”

And while this trial was made up of 95% gay and bisexual men, that ethos applies to every other group that could benefit from PrEP, including cisgender and transgender women and other gender-diverse people, Latinos, and Black Americans. In the United States, these groups make up nearly half of those who could benefit from PrEP under older guidelines but account for just 8% of people currently taking PrEP.

The finding also reinforces growing calls from health care providers to reduce gatekeeping around PrEP. For instance, there’s a move underway by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where drafts of updated PrEP guidelines call for clinicians to talk to any sexually active teenager and adult about PrEP.

For the PrEP Impact trial, gay and bisexual men who received sexual health care at UK National Health Service sexual health clinics were invited to enroll in the study based on national PrEP guidelines. Those guidelines included being a cisgender man who had had sex with men not currently living with HIV and reporting condomless anal sex in the last 3 months; having a male partner whose HIV status they don’t know or who doesn’t have an undetectable viral load and with whom they’ve had condomless anal sex; or someone who doesn’t reach those criteria but whom the clinician thinks would be a good candidate.

Between Oct. 2017 and Feb. 2020, a total of 17,770 gay and bisexual men and 503 transgender or nonbinary people enrolled in the trial and were paired with 97,098 gay and bisexual men who didn’t use PrEP. (Data from the transgender participants were reported in a separate presentation.) The median age was 27 years, with 14.4% of the cisgender gay men between the ages of 16 and 24. Three out of four cis men were White, most lived in London, and more than half came from very-low-income neighborhoods.

Participants and controls were assessed for whether they were at particularly high risk for acquiring HIV, such as having used PrEP, having had two or more HIV tests, having had a rectal bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI), or having had contact with someone with HIV or syphilis.

At the end of Feb. 2020, 24 cisgender men on PrEP had acquired HIV compared with 670 in the control group – an 87% reduction in HIV acquisition. Only one of those 24 cis men had lab-confirmed high adherence to PrEP. However, because the hair samples used to judge drug concentration weren’t long enough, Dr. Sullivan and colleagues were unable to assess whether the person really was fully adherent to treatment for the length of the trial.

But when they looked at the assessed behavior of people who acquired HIV, the two groups diverged. While a full 92% of people using PrEP had had STI diagnoses and other markers of increased risk, that was true for only 71% of people not taking PrEP. That meant, Dr. Sullivan said in an interview, that screening guidelines for PrEP were missing 29% of people with low assessed risk for HIV who nevertheless acquired the virus.

The findings led Antonio Urbina, MD, who both prescribes PrEP and manages Mount Sinai Medical Center’s PrEP program in New York, to the same conclusion that Dr. Sullivan and her team came to: that no screener is going to account for everything, and that there may be things that patients don’t want to tell their clinicians about their risk, either because of their own internalized stigma or their calculation that they aren’t comfortable enough with their providers to be honest.

“It reinforces to me that I need to ask more open-ended questions regarding risk and then just talk more about PrEP,” said Dr. Urbina, professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Risk is dynamic and changes. And the great thing about PrEP is that if the risk goes up or down, if you have PrEP on board, you maintain this protection against HIV.”

An accompanying presentation on the transgender and nonbinary participants in the Impact Trial found that just one of 503 PrEP users acquired HIV. But here, too, there were people who could have benefited from PrEP but didn’t take it: Of the 477 trans and nonbinary participants who acted as controls, 97 were eligible by current guidelines but didn’t take PrEP. One in four of those declined the offer to take PrEP; the rest weren’t able to take it because they lived outside the treatment area. That, combined with a significantly lower likelihood that Black trans and nonbinary people took PrEP, indicated that work needs to be done to address the needs of people geographically and ethnically.

The data on gay men also raised the “who’s left out” issue for Gina Simoncini, MD, medical director for the Philadelphia AIDS Healthcare Foundation Healthcare Center. Dr. Simoncini previously taught attending physicians at Temple University how to prescribe PrEP and has done many grand rounds for primary care providers on how to manage PrEP.

“My biggest issue with this data is: What about the people who aren’t going to sexual health clinics?” she said. “What about the kid who’s 16 and maybe just barely putting his feet into the waters of sex and doesn’t feel quite comfortable going to a sexual health clinic? What about the trans Indian girl who can’t get to sexual health clinics because of family stigma and cultural stigma? The more we move toward primary care, the more people need to get on board with this.”

Dr. Sullivan reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simoncini is an employee of AIDS Healthcare Foundation and has received advisory board fees from ViiV Healthcare. Dr. Urbina sits on the scientific advisory councils for Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck.

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

One year into offering the first long-acting injectable HIV treatment to his patients, Jonathan Angel, MD, head of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Ottawa, reported that 15 of the 21 of patients who started on the regimen are still taking it, all with viral suppression. Those who weren’t cited a combination of inconvenience, injection site pain, and “injection fatigue.”

These are just a few things HIV providers are learning as they begin what Chloe Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London, called a paradigm shift to long-acting treatment, which may soon include not just shots but rings, implants, and microarray patches.

“It’s a paradigm shift, and we are at the very beginning of this paradigm shift,” said Dr. Orkin, commenting during the discussion session of the European AIDS Clinical Society 2021 annual meeting. “We’re having to change our model, and it’s challenging.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first long-acting injectable, a combination of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RIL; Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare) in January 2021. But it has been approved in Canada since March 2020 and available at Dr. Angel’s clinic since November 2020. It’s also available in Canada as an every-other-month shot. Injected into the buttocks, the shot was found to be noninferior to standard daily oral treatment in many studies, including the ATLAS, the ATLAS-2M – which tested the every-other-month approach – and FLAIR trials.

Dr. Angel’s clinic was part of all three of those trials, so his clinic has had 5 years’ experience preparing for the change in workflow and the new approach the shots require.

Of the 21 people Dr. Angel has treated, 11 were white Canadians, nine were Black African, and one was Indigenous Canadian, with women making up a third of the participants. Median age was 51 years, and all patients had had undetectable viral loads before beginning the regimen. (Studies of the drug’s effectiveness in people who struggle to take daily pills are still ongoing.)

Most of those 21 patients had had undetectable viral loads for more than 5 years, but a few had been undetectable for only 6 months before beginning the shots. Their immune systems were also healthy, with a median CD4 count of 618 cells/mcL. As in the clinical trials, none of the participants had experienced antiretroviral treatment failure. Because public health insurers in Canada have yet to approve the shots, Dr. Angel’s patients receiving Cabenuva also have private health insurance. Up to 90% of people in Canada receive pharmaceutical coverage through public insurance; therefore, the shot is not yet widely available.

Twenty patients switched from integrase-inhibitor regimens, and one had been receiving a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor–based regimen before starting Cabenuva.

And although the drug has not been approved for shot initiation this way, two patients requested – and Dr. Angel agreed – to start them on the shots without first doing a month of daily pills to check for safety.

“This is my conclusion from these data: the oral lead-in period is not necessary,” Dr. Angel said in his presentation at the meeting. “It can provide some comfort to either a physician or a patient, but it does not seem to be medically necessary.”

That approach is not without data to back it up. Research presented at HIV Glasgow 2020 showed that people who switched from daily oral dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine straight to the injections did so without problems.

At last clinic visit, 15 of those 21 were still receiving the shots. None have experienced treatment failure, and all were still virally suppressed. Four participants left the trials and one more person opted to return to daily pills, citing some level of what Dr. Angel called “injection fatigue.”

“Just as we use the term ‘pill fatigue’ for patients who are tired of taking pills, patients do get tired of coming in monthly for their visits and injections,” he said. They find the trip to the clinic for the intramuscular injections “inconvenient,” he said.

Unlike in the United States, where Cabenuva is approved for only monthly injections, Health Canada has already approved the shot for every-other-month injections, which Dr. Angel said may reduce the odds of injection fatigue.

Dr. Angel’s presentation drew comments, questions, and excitement from the crowd. Annemarie Wensing, MD, assistant professor of medicine at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), asked whether dispensing with the oral lead-in period could mean that these shots could be useful for people going on longer trips, people having surgeries where they can’t swallow pills, or in other scenarios.

“These are not hypothetical conversations,” Dr. Angel said. “I’m having these conversations with patients now – temporary use, they travel for 3 months and come back, can they go from injectable to oral to injectable.”

For now, he said, the answer is, “We’ll figure it out.”

Meanwhile, there’s another big question when it comes to injectables, said Marta Vas ylyev, MD, from Lviv (Ukraine) Regional AIDS Center: When will they be available to the people who might benefit most from them – people in resource-limited settings, people who so far have struggled to remember to take their pills every day?

For now, Dr. Angel replied, injectables continue to be a treatment only for those who are already doing well while receiving HIV treatment: those with already suppressed viral load, who are good at taking daily pills, and who are being treated at well-resourced clinics.

“There are huge obstacles to overcome if this is ever to be available [in resource-limited settings], and way more obstacles than there are with any oral therapies,” he said. “There’s not been much discussion here about the necessity of cold-chain requirements of pharmacies either centrally or locally, [or] the requirements of additional nurses or health care staff to administer the medication. So you’re looking at a very resource-intensive therapy, which now is fairly restrictive [as to] who will have access to it.”

Dr. Angel reports serving on advisory boards for ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences and has done contract research for ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, and Merck. Dr. Orkin has received research grants, fees as a consultant, travel sponsorship, and speaker fees from ViiV, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Vasylyev reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

One year into offering the first long-acting injectable HIV treatment to his patients, Jonathan Angel, MD, head of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Ottawa, reported that 15 of the 21 of patients who started on the regimen are still taking it, all with viral suppression. Those who weren’t cited a combination of inconvenience, injection site pain, and “injection fatigue.”

These are just a few things HIV providers are learning as they begin what Chloe Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London, called a paradigm shift to long-acting treatment, which may soon include not just shots but rings, implants, and microarray patches.

“It’s a paradigm shift, and we are at the very beginning of this paradigm shift,” said Dr. Orkin, commenting during the discussion session of the European AIDS Clinical Society 2021 annual meeting. “We’re having to change our model, and it’s challenging.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first long-acting injectable, a combination of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RIL; Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare) in January 2021. But it has been approved in Canada since March 2020 and available at Dr. Angel’s clinic since November 2020. It’s also available in Canada as an every-other-month shot. Injected into the buttocks, the shot was found to be noninferior to standard daily oral treatment in many studies, including the ATLAS, the ATLAS-2M – which tested the every-other-month approach – and FLAIR trials.

Dr. Angel’s clinic was part of all three of those trials, so his clinic has had 5 years’ experience preparing for the change in workflow and the new approach the shots require.

Of the 21 people Dr. Angel has treated, 11 were white Canadians, nine were Black African, and one was Indigenous Canadian, with women making up a third of the participants. Median age was 51 years, and all patients had had undetectable viral loads before beginning the regimen. (Studies of the drug’s effectiveness in people who struggle to take daily pills are still ongoing.)

Most of those 21 patients had had undetectable viral loads for more than 5 years, but a few had been undetectable for only 6 months before beginning the shots. Their immune systems were also healthy, with a median CD4 count of 618 cells/mcL. As in the clinical trials, none of the participants had experienced antiretroviral treatment failure. Because public health insurers in Canada have yet to approve the shots, Dr. Angel’s patients receiving Cabenuva also have private health insurance. Up to 90% of people in Canada receive pharmaceutical coverage through public insurance; therefore, the shot is not yet widely available.

Twenty patients switched from integrase-inhibitor regimens, and one had been receiving a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor–based regimen before starting Cabenuva.

And although the drug has not been approved for shot initiation this way, two patients requested – and Dr. Angel agreed – to start them on the shots without first doing a month of daily pills to check for safety.

“This is my conclusion from these data: the oral lead-in period is not necessary,” Dr. Angel said in his presentation at the meeting. “It can provide some comfort to either a physician or a patient, but it does not seem to be medically necessary.”

That approach is not without data to back it up. Research presented at HIV Glasgow 2020 showed that people who switched from daily oral dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine straight to the injections did so without problems.

At last clinic visit, 15 of those 21 were still receiving the shots. None have experienced treatment failure, and all were still virally suppressed. Four participants left the trials and one more person opted to return to daily pills, citing some level of what Dr. Angel called “injection fatigue.”

“Just as we use the term ‘pill fatigue’ for patients who are tired of taking pills, patients do get tired of coming in monthly for their visits and injections,” he said. They find the trip to the clinic for the intramuscular injections “inconvenient,” he said.

Unlike in the United States, where Cabenuva is approved for only monthly injections, Health Canada has already approved the shot for every-other-month injections, which Dr. Angel said may reduce the odds of injection fatigue.

Dr. Angel’s presentation drew comments, questions, and excitement from the crowd. Annemarie Wensing, MD, assistant professor of medicine at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), asked whether dispensing with the oral lead-in period could mean that these shots could be useful for people going on longer trips, people having surgeries where they can’t swallow pills, or in other scenarios.

“These are not hypothetical conversations,” Dr. Angel said. “I’m having these conversations with patients now – temporary use, they travel for 3 months and come back, can they go from injectable to oral to injectable.”

For now, he said, the answer is, “We’ll figure it out.”

Meanwhile, there’s another big question when it comes to injectables, said Marta Vas ylyev, MD, from Lviv (Ukraine) Regional AIDS Center: When will they be available to the people who might benefit most from them – people in resource-limited settings, people who so far have struggled to remember to take their pills every day?

For now, Dr. Angel replied, injectables continue to be a treatment only for those who are already doing well while receiving HIV treatment: those with already suppressed viral load, who are good at taking daily pills, and who are being treated at well-resourced clinics.

“There are huge obstacles to overcome if this is ever to be available [in resource-limited settings], and way more obstacles than there are with any oral therapies,” he said. “There’s not been much discussion here about the necessity of cold-chain requirements of pharmacies either centrally or locally, [or] the requirements of additional nurses or health care staff to administer the medication. So you’re looking at a very resource-intensive therapy, which now is fairly restrictive [as to] who will have access to it.”

Dr. Angel reports serving on advisory boards for ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences and has done contract research for ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, and Merck. Dr. Orkin has received research grants, fees as a consultant, travel sponsorship, and speaker fees from ViiV, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Vasylyev reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

One year into offering the first long-acting injectable HIV treatment to his patients, Jonathan Angel, MD, head of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Ottawa, reported that 15 of the 21 of patients who started on the regimen are still taking it, all with viral suppression. Those who weren’t cited a combination of inconvenience, injection site pain, and “injection fatigue.”

These are just a few things HIV providers are learning as they begin what Chloe Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London, called a paradigm shift to long-acting treatment, which may soon include not just shots but rings, implants, and microarray patches.

“It’s a paradigm shift, and we are at the very beginning of this paradigm shift,” said Dr. Orkin, commenting during the discussion session of the European AIDS Clinical Society 2021 annual meeting. “We’re having to change our model, and it’s challenging.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first long-acting injectable, a combination of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RIL; Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare) in January 2021. But it has been approved in Canada since March 2020 and available at Dr. Angel’s clinic since November 2020. It’s also available in Canada as an every-other-month shot. Injected into the buttocks, the shot was found to be noninferior to standard daily oral treatment in many studies, including the ATLAS, the ATLAS-2M – which tested the every-other-month approach – and FLAIR trials.

Dr. Angel’s clinic was part of all three of those trials, so his clinic has had 5 years’ experience preparing for the change in workflow and the new approach the shots require.

Of the 21 people Dr. Angel has treated, 11 were white Canadians, nine were Black African, and one was Indigenous Canadian, with women making up a third of the participants. Median age was 51 years, and all patients had had undetectable viral loads before beginning the regimen. (Studies of the drug’s effectiveness in people who struggle to take daily pills are still ongoing.)

Most of those 21 patients had had undetectable viral loads for more than 5 years, but a few had been undetectable for only 6 months before beginning the shots. Their immune systems were also healthy, with a median CD4 count of 618 cells/mcL. As in the clinical trials, none of the participants had experienced antiretroviral treatment failure. Because public health insurers in Canada have yet to approve the shots, Dr. Angel’s patients receiving Cabenuva also have private health insurance. Up to 90% of people in Canada receive pharmaceutical coverage through public insurance; therefore, the shot is not yet widely available.

Twenty patients switched from integrase-inhibitor regimens, and one had been receiving a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor–based regimen before starting Cabenuva.

And although the drug has not been approved for shot initiation this way, two patients requested – and Dr. Angel agreed – to start them on the shots without first doing a month of daily pills to check for safety.

“This is my conclusion from these data: the oral lead-in period is not necessary,” Dr. Angel said in his presentation at the meeting. “It can provide some comfort to either a physician or a patient, but it does not seem to be medically necessary.”

That approach is not without data to back it up. Research presented at HIV Glasgow 2020 showed that people who switched from daily oral dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine straight to the injections did so without problems.

At last clinic visit, 15 of those 21 were still receiving the shots. None have experienced treatment failure, and all were still virally suppressed. Four participants left the trials and one more person opted to return to daily pills, citing some level of what Dr. Angel called “injection fatigue.”

“Just as we use the term ‘pill fatigue’ for patients who are tired of taking pills, patients do get tired of coming in monthly for their visits and injections,” he said. They find the trip to the clinic for the intramuscular injections “inconvenient,” he said.

Unlike in the United States, where Cabenuva is approved for only monthly injections, Health Canada has already approved the shot for every-other-month injections, which Dr. Angel said may reduce the odds of injection fatigue.

Dr. Angel’s presentation drew comments, questions, and excitement from the crowd. Annemarie Wensing, MD, assistant professor of medicine at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), asked whether dispensing with the oral lead-in period could mean that these shots could be useful for people going on longer trips, people having surgeries where they can’t swallow pills, or in other scenarios.

“These are not hypothetical conversations,” Dr. Angel said. “I’m having these conversations with patients now – temporary use, they travel for 3 months and come back, can they go from injectable to oral to injectable.”

For now, he said, the answer is, “We’ll figure it out.”

Meanwhile, there’s another big question when it comes to injectables, said Marta Vas ylyev, MD, from Lviv (Ukraine) Regional AIDS Center: When will they be available to the people who might benefit most from them – people in resource-limited settings, people who so far have struggled to remember to take their pills every day?

For now, Dr. Angel replied, injectables continue to be a treatment only for those who are already doing well while receiving HIV treatment: those with already suppressed viral load, who are good at taking daily pills, and who are being treated at well-resourced clinics.

“There are huge obstacles to overcome if this is ever to be available [in resource-limited settings], and way more obstacles than there are with any oral therapies,” he said. “There’s not been much discussion here about the necessity of cold-chain requirements of pharmacies either centrally or locally, [or] the requirements of additional nurses or health care staff to administer the medication. So you’re looking at a very resource-intensive therapy, which now is fairly restrictive [as to] who will have access to it.”

Dr. Angel reports serving on advisory boards for ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences and has done contract research for ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, and Merck. Dr. Orkin has received research grants, fees as a consultant, travel sponsorship, and speaker fees from ViiV, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Vasylyev reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

Women who take a wide variety of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) – not just those on a few types – may be especially susceptible to hair loss via alopecia, a new study finds.

From 2009 to 2019, the Food and Drug Administration received 7,978 reports of new-onset alopecia in patients taking DMTs, particularly teriflunomide (3,255, 40.8%; 90% female), dimethyl fumarate (1,641, 20.6%; 89% female), natalizumab (955, 12.0%; 92% female), and fingolimod (776, 9.7% of the total reports; 93% female), several researchers reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). Of these, only teriflunomide had previously been linked to alopecia, study coauthor Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Our finding of frequent reports of alopecia on DMTs studied calls for further investigation into the subject,” Dr. Obeidat said. “Alopecia can cause deep personal impacts and can be a source of significant psychological concern for some patients.”

According to Dr. Obeidat, alopecia has been linked to the only a few DMTs – cladribine and the interferons – in addition to teriflunomide. “To our surprise, we received anecdotal reports of hair thinning from several of our MS patients treated with various other [DMTs]. Upon further investigation, we could not find substantial literature to explain this phenomenon which led us to conduct our investigation.”

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues identified DMT-related alopecia cases (18.3%) among 43,655 reports in the skin and subcutaneous tissue disorder category in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Other DMTs with more than 1 case report were interferon beta-1a (635, 8.0%; 92% female), glatiramer acetate (332, 4.2%; 87% female), ocrelizumab (142, 1.8%; 94% female), interferon beta-1b (126, 1.6%; 95% female), alemtuzumab (86, 1.1%; 88% female), cladribine (17, 0.2%; 65% female), and rituximab (10, 0.1%; 90% female).

The average age for the case reports varied from 42 to 51 years for most of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age, 40 years) and cladribine (average age, 38 years), which had low numbers of cases.

Siponimod (three cases) and ozanimod (no cases) were not included in the age and gender analyses.

Why do so many women seem to be affected, well beyond their percentage of MS cases overall? The answer is unclear, said medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study’s lead author. “There could be a biological explanation,” Mr. Porwal said, “or women may report cases more often: “Earlier studies suggested that alopecia may affect women more adversely in terms of body image as well as overall psychological well-being, compared to males.”

The researchers also noted that patients – not medical professionals – provided most of the case reports in the FDA database. “We believe this indicates that alopecia is a patient-centered concern that may have a larger impact on their lives than what the health care teams may perceive,” Mr. Porwal said. “Oftentimes, we as health care providers, look for the more acute and apparent adverse events, which can overshadow issues such as hair thinning/alopecia that could have even greater psychological impacts on our patients.”

Dr. Obeidat said there are still multiple mysteries about DMT and alopecia risk: the true incidence of cases per DMT or DMT class, the mechanism(s) behind a link, the permanent or transient nature of the alopecia cases, and the risk factors in individual patients.

Going forward, he said, “we advise clinicians to discuss hair thinning or alopecia as a possible side effect that has been reported in association with all DMTs in the real-world, postmarketing era.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Obeidat reported various disclosures; the other authors reported no disclosures.

Women who take a wide variety of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) – not just those on a few types – may be especially susceptible to hair loss via alopecia, a new study finds.

From 2009 to 2019, the Food and Drug Administration received 7,978 reports of new-onset alopecia in patients taking DMTs, particularly teriflunomide (3,255, 40.8%; 90% female), dimethyl fumarate (1,641, 20.6%; 89% female), natalizumab (955, 12.0%; 92% female), and fingolimod (776, 9.7% of the total reports; 93% female), several researchers reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). Of these, only teriflunomide had previously been linked to alopecia, study coauthor Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Our finding of frequent reports of alopecia on DMTs studied calls for further investigation into the subject,” Dr. Obeidat said. “Alopecia can cause deep personal impacts and can be a source of significant psychological concern for some patients.”

According to Dr. Obeidat, alopecia has been linked to the only a few DMTs – cladribine and the interferons – in addition to teriflunomide. “To our surprise, we received anecdotal reports of hair thinning from several of our MS patients treated with various other [DMTs]. Upon further investigation, we could not find substantial literature to explain this phenomenon which led us to conduct our investigation.”

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues identified DMT-related alopecia cases (18.3%) among 43,655 reports in the skin and subcutaneous tissue disorder category in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Other DMTs with more than 1 case report were interferon beta-1a (635, 8.0%; 92% female), glatiramer acetate (332, 4.2%; 87% female), ocrelizumab (142, 1.8%; 94% female), interferon beta-1b (126, 1.6%; 95% female), alemtuzumab (86, 1.1%; 88% female), cladribine (17, 0.2%; 65% female), and rituximab (10, 0.1%; 90% female).

The average age for the case reports varied from 42 to 51 years for most of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age, 40 years) and cladribine (average age, 38 years), which had low numbers of cases.

Siponimod (three cases) and ozanimod (no cases) were not included in the age and gender analyses.

Why do so many women seem to be affected, well beyond their percentage of MS cases overall? The answer is unclear, said medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study’s lead author. “There could be a biological explanation,” Mr. Porwal said, “or women may report cases more often: “Earlier studies suggested that alopecia may affect women more adversely in terms of body image as well as overall psychological well-being, compared to males.”

The researchers also noted that patients – not medical professionals – provided most of the case reports in the FDA database. “We believe this indicates that alopecia is a patient-centered concern that may have a larger impact on their lives than what the health care teams may perceive,” Mr. Porwal said. “Oftentimes, we as health care providers, look for the more acute and apparent adverse events, which can overshadow issues such as hair thinning/alopecia that could have even greater psychological impacts on our patients.”

Dr. Obeidat said there are still multiple mysteries about DMT and alopecia risk: the true incidence of cases per DMT or DMT class, the mechanism(s) behind a link, the permanent or transient nature of the alopecia cases, and the risk factors in individual patients.

Going forward, he said, “we advise clinicians to discuss hair thinning or alopecia as a possible side effect that has been reported in association with all DMTs in the real-world, postmarketing era.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Obeidat reported various disclosures; the other authors reported no disclosures.

Women who take a wide variety of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) – not just those on a few types – may be especially susceptible to hair loss via alopecia, a new study finds.

From 2009 to 2019, the Food and Drug Administration received 7,978 reports of new-onset alopecia in patients taking DMTs, particularly teriflunomide (3,255, 40.8%; 90% female), dimethyl fumarate (1,641, 20.6%; 89% female), natalizumab (955, 12.0%; 92% female), and fingolimod (776, 9.7% of the total reports; 93% female), several researchers reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). Of these, only teriflunomide had previously been linked to alopecia, study coauthor Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Our finding of frequent reports of alopecia on DMTs studied calls for further investigation into the subject,” Dr. Obeidat said. “Alopecia can cause deep personal impacts and can be a source of significant psychological concern for some patients.”

According to Dr. Obeidat, alopecia has been linked to the only a few DMTs – cladribine and the interferons – in addition to teriflunomide. “To our surprise, we received anecdotal reports of hair thinning from several of our MS patients treated with various other [DMTs]. Upon further investigation, we could not find substantial literature to explain this phenomenon which led us to conduct our investigation.”

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues identified DMT-related alopecia cases (18.3%) among 43,655 reports in the skin and subcutaneous tissue disorder category in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Other DMTs with more than 1 case report were interferon beta-1a (635, 8.0%; 92% female), glatiramer acetate (332, 4.2%; 87% female), ocrelizumab (142, 1.8%; 94% female), interferon beta-1b (126, 1.6%; 95% female), alemtuzumab (86, 1.1%; 88% female), cladribine (17, 0.2%; 65% female), and rituximab (10, 0.1%; 90% female).

The average age for the case reports varied from 42 to 51 years for most of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age, 40 years) and cladribine (average age, 38 years), which had low numbers of cases.

Siponimod (three cases) and ozanimod (no cases) were not included in the age and gender analyses.

Why do so many women seem to be affected, well beyond their percentage of MS cases overall? The answer is unclear, said medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study’s lead author. “There could be a biological explanation,” Mr. Porwal said, “or women may report cases more often: “Earlier studies suggested that alopecia may affect women more adversely in terms of body image as well as overall psychological well-being, compared to males.”

The researchers also noted that patients – not medical professionals – provided most of the case reports in the FDA database. “We believe this indicates that alopecia is a patient-centered concern that may have a larger impact on their lives than what the health care teams may perceive,” Mr. Porwal said. “Oftentimes, we as health care providers, look for the more acute and apparent adverse events, which can overshadow issues such as hair thinning/alopecia that could have even greater psychological impacts on our patients.”

Dr. Obeidat said there are still multiple mysteries about DMT and alopecia risk: the true incidence of cases per DMT or DMT class, the mechanism(s) behind a link, the permanent or transient nature of the alopecia cases, and the risk factors in individual patients.

Going forward, he said, “we advise clinicians to discuss hair thinning or alopecia as a possible side effect that has been reported in association with all DMTs in the real-world, postmarketing era.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Obeidat reported various disclosures; the other authors reported no disclosures.

Clinicians are prescribing clarithromycin at high rates for Helicobacter pylori infections, despite increasing resistance to this antibiotic, researchers say.

In an analysis of 1 million U.S. prescriptions for H. pylori infections, 80% contained clarithromycin, said Carol Rockett, PharmD, associate vice president of RedHill Biopharma in Raleigh, N.C.

Dr. Rockett presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Multiple talks [at the meeting] have suggested that the use of clarithromycin in H. pylori is obsolete,” she told this news organization. “Clarithromycin is particularly ineffective in people with a genetic variant that causes rapid metabolism.”

According to the 2017 ACG clinical guideline for treating H. pylori, patients diagnosed with this infection should be asked about their previous antibiotic exposure prior to treatment.

Additionally, clinicians should prescribe clarithromycin triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin or metronidazole as a first-line treatment only in “regions where H. pylori clarithromycin resistance is known to be less than 15%” and in patients with no previous history of macrolide exposure.

The guideline puts bismuth quadruple therapy, consisting of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and a nitroimidazole, at the top of its list of six alternative first-line therapies. However, three of the six alternatives include clarithromycin.
 

ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2

To understand how U.S. physicians are treating patients with H. pylori, Dr. Rockett’s colleagues analyzed data from two phase 3 clinical trials of RedHill’s RHB-105 (Talicia): ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2.

RHB-105 is an all-in‐one combination of omeprazole (40 mg), amoxicillin (1,000 mg), and rifabutin (50 mg) that the Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of H pylori in 2019.

The researchers followed 38 subjects from ERADICATE Hp who remained positive for H. pylori after the study’s completion. A total of 33 had received a placebo in that trial, while the other 5 had received RHB-105.

The researchers obtained data on 31 of these patients. The overall cure rate was 61.3%. Of the 31 patients, 27 received a regimen including clarithromycin. Their cure rate was 59.3%.

Turning to ERADICATE Hp2, the researchers obtained data on 94 patients whose H. pylori infections persisted after the trial. Of those, 67 had received an active comparator (amoxicillin 250 mg and omeprazole 10 mg) and 27 had received RHB-105.

The overall cure rate was 56.2%. For the 48 subjects who received therapies including clarithromycin, the cure rate was 60.4%. For the 22 subjects who received a bismuth-based quadruple regimen, the cure rate was 45.4%.

In another analysis, the researchers crunched 12 months of numbers from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus medical and prescription claim database of over 1 million prescriptions for H. pylori. They found that 80% of the prescriptions made by gastroenterologists were for regimens containing clarithromycin. That proportion increased to 84% for physician assistants and internists, 85% for nurse practitioners, 86% for family practitioners, and 89% for general practitioners.

Finally, the researchers also analyzed patients for CYP2C19 gene status. They tested 65 subjects who received RHB-105 in ERADICATE Hp and all 445 subjects in ERADICATE Hp2. They found that 58.5% in ERADICATE Hp and 48.6% in ERADICATE Hp2 were normal metabolizers.

In 20 normal metabolizers who received clarithromycin, the drug eradicated the infection in 16 (80%). Out of 11 rapid metabolizers, clarithromycin eradicated the bacterium in 2 (18.2%). The difference was statistically significant (P = .0017).

“With clarithromycin, you can see that the efficacy is reduced in those patients who are rapid metabolizers,” Dr. Rockett said. “We didn’t see that with rifabutin [one of the drugs in RHB-105].”

Jared Magee, DO, MPH, a gastroenterology fellow at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., said in treating H. pylori infections, he checks the patients’ medical records to see what antibiotics they have received in the past and generally begins treatment with the bismuth quadruple therapy.

“There is education needed to get the data out there that clarithromycin-based therapies may not be the right choice for patients,” he said. “There is a subset who will do well with it, but I think where we’re at now, with the frequency of macrolide prescriptions for other conditions, that clarithromycin is going to be a difficult therapy for a lot of people.”

Clinicians who are not gastroenterologists may not be aware of the guideline promulgated by the ACG, he pointed out.

Dr. Rockett is an employee of RedHill Biopharma. Dr. Magee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by RedHill Biopharma.

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

Clinicians are prescribing clarithromycin at high rates for Helicobacter pylori infections, despite increasing resistance to this antibiotic, researchers say.

In an analysis of 1 million U.S. prescriptions for H. pylori infections, 80% contained clarithromycin, said Carol Rockett, PharmD, associate vice president of RedHill Biopharma in Raleigh, N.C.

Dr. Rockett presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Multiple talks [at the meeting] have suggested that the use of clarithromycin in H. pylori is obsolete,” she told this news organization. “Clarithromycin is particularly ineffective in people with a genetic variant that causes rapid metabolism.”

According to the 2017 ACG clinical guideline for treating H. pylori, patients diagnosed with this infection should be asked about their previous antibiotic exposure prior to treatment.

Additionally, clinicians should prescribe clarithromycin triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin or metronidazole as a first-line treatment only in “regions where H. pylori clarithromycin resistance is known to be less than 15%” and in patients with no previous history of macrolide exposure.

The guideline puts bismuth quadruple therapy, consisting of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and a nitroimidazole, at the top of its list of six alternative first-line therapies. However, three of the six alternatives include clarithromycin.
 

ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2

To understand how U.S. physicians are treating patients with H. pylori, Dr. Rockett’s colleagues analyzed data from two phase 3 clinical trials of RedHill’s RHB-105 (Talicia): ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2.

RHB-105 is an all-in‐one combination of omeprazole (40 mg), amoxicillin (1,000 mg), and rifabutin (50 mg) that the Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of H pylori in 2019.

The researchers followed 38 subjects from ERADICATE Hp who remained positive for H. pylori after the study’s completion. A total of 33 had received a placebo in that trial, while the other 5 had received RHB-105.

The researchers obtained data on 31 of these patients. The overall cure rate was 61.3%. Of the 31 patients, 27 received a regimen including clarithromycin. Their cure rate was 59.3%.

Turning to ERADICATE Hp2, the researchers obtained data on 94 patients whose H. pylori infections persisted after the trial. Of those, 67 had received an active comparator (amoxicillin 250 mg and omeprazole 10 mg) and 27 had received RHB-105.

The overall cure rate was 56.2%. For the 48 subjects who received therapies including clarithromycin, the cure rate was 60.4%. For the 22 subjects who received a bismuth-based quadruple regimen, the cure rate was 45.4%.

In another analysis, the researchers crunched 12 months of numbers from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus medical and prescription claim database of over 1 million prescriptions for H. pylori. They found that 80% of the prescriptions made by gastroenterologists were for regimens containing clarithromycin. That proportion increased to 84% for physician assistants and internists, 85% for nurse practitioners, 86% for family practitioners, and 89% for general practitioners.

Finally, the researchers also analyzed patients for CYP2C19 gene status. They tested 65 subjects who received RHB-105 in ERADICATE Hp and all 445 subjects in ERADICATE Hp2. They found that 58.5% in ERADICATE Hp and 48.6% in ERADICATE Hp2 were normal metabolizers.

In 20 normal metabolizers who received clarithromycin, the drug eradicated the infection in 16 (80%). Out of 11 rapid metabolizers, clarithromycin eradicated the bacterium in 2 (18.2%). The difference was statistically significant (P = .0017).

“With clarithromycin, you can see that the efficacy is reduced in those patients who are rapid metabolizers,” Dr. Rockett said. “We didn’t see that with rifabutin [one of the drugs in RHB-105].”

Jared Magee, DO, MPH, a gastroenterology fellow at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., said in treating H. pylori infections, he checks the patients’ medical records to see what antibiotics they have received in the past and generally begins treatment with the bismuth quadruple therapy.

“There is education needed to get the data out there that clarithromycin-based therapies may not be the right choice for patients,” he said. “There is a subset who will do well with it, but I think where we’re at now, with the frequency of macrolide prescriptions for other conditions, that clarithromycin is going to be a difficult therapy for a lot of people.”

Clinicians who are not gastroenterologists may not be aware of the guideline promulgated by the ACG, he pointed out.

Dr. Rockett is an employee of RedHill Biopharma. Dr. Magee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by RedHill Biopharma.

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

Clinicians are prescribing clarithromycin at high rates for Helicobacter pylori infections, despite increasing resistance to this antibiotic, researchers say.

In an analysis of 1 million U.S. prescriptions for H. pylori infections, 80% contained clarithromycin, said Carol Rockett, PharmD, associate vice president of RedHill Biopharma in Raleigh, N.C.

Dr. Rockett presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Multiple talks [at the meeting] have suggested that the use of clarithromycin in H. pylori is obsolete,” she told this news organization. “Clarithromycin is particularly ineffective in people with a genetic variant that causes rapid metabolism.”

According to the 2017 ACG clinical guideline for treating H. pylori, patients diagnosed with this infection should be asked about their previous antibiotic exposure prior to treatment.

Additionally, clinicians should prescribe clarithromycin triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin or metronidazole as a first-line treatment only in “regions where H. pylori clarithromycin resistance is known to be less than 15%” and in patients with no previous history of macrolide exposure.

The guideline puts bismuth quadruple therapy, consisting of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and a nitroimidazole, at the top of its list of six alternative first-line therapies. However, three of the six alternatives include clarithromycin.
 

ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2

To understand how U.S. physicians are treating patients with H. pylori, Dr. Rockett’s colleagues analyzed data from two phase 3 clinical trials of RedHill’s RHB-105 (Talicia): ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2.

RHB-105 is an all-in‐one combination of omeprazole (40 mg), amoxicillin (1,000 mg), and rifabutin (50 mg) that the Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of H pylori in 2019.

The researchers followed 38 subjects from ERADICATE Hp who remained positive for H. pylori after the study’s completion. A total of 33 had received a placebo in that trial, while the other 5 had received RHB-105.

The researchers obtained data on 31 of these patients. The overall cure rate was 61.3%. Of the 31 patients, 27 received a regimen including clarithromycin. Their cure rate was 59.3%.

Turning to ERADICATE Hp2, the researchers obtained data on 94 patients whose H. pylori infections persisted after the trial. Of those, 67 had received an active comparator (amoxicillin 250 mg and omeprazole 10 mg) and 27 had received RHB-105.

The overall cure rate was 56.2%. For the 48 subjects who received therapies including clarithromycin, the cure rate was 60.4%. For the 22 subjects who received a bismuth-based quadruple regimen, the cure rate was 45.4%.

In another analysis, the researchers crunched 12 months of numbers from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus medical and prescription claim database of over 1 million prescriptions for H. pylori. They found that 80% of the prescriptions made by gastroenterologists were for regimens containing clarithromycin. That proportion increased to 84% for physician assistants and internists, 85% for nurse practitioners, 86% for family practitioners, and 89% for general practitioners.

Finally, the researchers also analyzed patients for CYP2C19 gene status. They tested 65 subjects who received RHB-105 in ERADICATE Hp and all 445 subjects in ERADICATE Hp2. They found that 58.5% in ERADICATE Hp and 48.6% in ERADICATE Hp2 were normal metabolizers.

In 20 normal metabolizers who received clarithromycin, the drug eradicated the infection in 16 (80%). Out of 11 rapid metabolizers, clarithromycin eradicated the bacterium in 2 (18.2%). The difference was statistically significant (P = .0017).

“With clarithromycin, you can see that the efficacy is reduced in those patients who are rapid metabolizers,” Dr. Rockett said. “We didn’t see that with rifabutin [one of the drugs in RHB-105].”

Jared Magee, DO, MPH, a gastroenterology fellow at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., said in treating H. pylori infections, he checks the patients’ medical records to see what antibiotics they have received in the past and generally begins treatment with the bismuth quadruple therapy.

“There is education needed to get the data out there that clarithromycin-based therapies may not be the right choice for patients,” he said. “There is a subset who will do well with it, but I think where we’re at now, with the frequency of macrolide prescriptions for other conditions, that clarithromycin is going to be a difficult therapy for a lot of people.”

Clinicians who are not gastroenterologists may not be aware of the guideline promulgated by the ACG, he pointed out.

Dr. Rockett is an employee of RedHill Biopharma. Dr. Magee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by RedHill Biopharma.

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

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – An oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) showed high efficacy and good safety as a treatment for ulcerative colitis in a phase 3 trial.

The finding could provide some reassurance after the Food and Drug Administration recently warned of an increased risk of cancer and heart disease associated with medications in the same class as upadacitinib.

“Serious adverse events were numerically lower in patients on upadacitinib, and discontinuations from the study due to adverse events were also lower” than in patients taking a placebo, said Edward Loftus, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Dr. Loftus presented the findings from the U-ACCOMPLISH study at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although other medications are approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, including biologics, many patients do not respond. In 2019, tofacitinib (Xeljanz) became the first JAK inhibitor approved for this condition. It works by blocking the JAK1 and JAK3 inflammation pathways, and at high concentrations, it also blocks the tyrosine kinase 2 and JAK2 pathways.

However, adverse events seen in clinical trials of tofacitinib include pneumonia, herpes zoster, anal abscess, and Clostridioides difficile infections. And, as reported by this news organization in September, the FDA required its manufacturer, Pfizer, to add a boxed warning that includes information about the risks of stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death.

Upadacitinib may be more selective and reversible because it preferentially blocks JAK1 or JAK1/3. In August 2019, it received FDA approval at a dose of 15 mg for adult patients with moderately to severely active RA who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate.

But the FDA applied the same warnings to upadacitinib – and to a third related drug, baricitinib (Olumiant) – that it required for tofacitinib, even though they are not as well studied.

The FDA also limited approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.
 

A well-tolerated treatment

U-ACCOMPLISH is one of two phase 3 trials induction trials completed on upadacitinib.

Investigators randomized 522 people with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, defined as Adapted Mayo Score 5-9 with a centrally read endoscopic score of 2-3. Of those patients, the intent to treat population included 341 in the upadacitinib group (45 mg once daily) and 174 in the placebo group.

The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between groups. More than two-thirds of patients in both groups were White, and more than two-thirds were men. In the upadacitinib group, 50.7% had responded inadequately to biologic treatments, compared with 51.1% in the placebo group.

After 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib achieved clinical remission as defined by the adapted Mayo Score (stool frequency subscore ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1).

“In terms of the efficacy, I think it’s very, very promising,” said Derrick Eichele, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology-hepatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, who was not involved in the trial.

The efficacy data were similar to those reported for tofacitinib in clinical trials, he said in an interview. “But I think again, what we’re waiting to see is how is this going to be positioned in relation to tofacitinib in terms of safety profile.”

More patients in the upadacitinib group reported adverse events, including those deemed related to the drug. However, the proportion that were severe, serious, or led to discontinuation was higher in the placebo group. No one in the study died, and no one in the upadacitinib group had an adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event, tuberculosis, or malignancy.

The most common adverse events were acne, blood creatine phosphokinase elevation, and anemia, which were all more common in the upadacitinib group, and headache and worsening of ulcerative colitis, which were more common in the placebo group.

Among adverse events of special interest, anemia, neutropenia, hepatic disorder, lymphopenia, serious infection, and opportunistic infection were more common in the upadacitinib group than in the placebo group. The four opportunistic infections in the upadacitinib group included two cases of herpes zoster.

In reviewing the poster presented at this meeting, the cases of neutropenia and hepatic disorder in the upadacitinib group stood out for Dr. Eichele. But he said it’s hard to pass judgment based on this amount of data. He is looking forward to a peer-reviewed publication. “I’ll be interested to see what it shows in terms of the details.”

Phase 3 trials of upadacitinib are underway in atopic dermatitis, RA, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, Crohn’s disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis as well as ulcerative colitis.

In a 52-week maintenance trial, according to a press release, malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) included one event among 148 people taking a 15-mg dose of upadacitinib 15, two events among 154 people taking a 30-mg dose of upadacitinib, and one event among 149 people in the placebo group.

Two cases of pulmonary embolism were reported in the 15-mg group and two cases of deep vein thrombosis were reported in the 30-mg group, compared with one event of ovarian vein thrombosis in the placebo group. One adjudicated major cardiovascular event each were reported in the upadacitinib 30-mg group and the placebo group. No one died.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Loftus reported that he is a consultant for AbbVie as well as multiple other gastroenterology drug companies. Dr. Eichele disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – An oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) showed high efficacy and good safety as a treatment for ulcerative colitis in a phase 3 trial.

The finding could provide some reassurance after the Food and Drug Administration recently warned of an increased risk of cancer and heart disease associated with medications in the same class as upadacitinib.

“Serious adverse events were numerically lower in patients on upadacitinib, and discontinuations from the study due to adverse events were also lower” than in patients taking a placebo, said Edward Loftus, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Dr. Loftus presented the findings from the U-ACCOMPLISH study at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although other medications are approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, including biologics, many patients do not respond. In 2019, tofacitinib (Xeljanz) became the first JAK inhibitor approved for this condition. It works by blocking the JAK1 and JAK3 inflammation pathways, and at high concentrations, it also blocks the tyrosine kinase 2 and JAK2 pathways.

However, adverse events seen in clinical trials of tofacitinib include pneumonia, herpes zoster, anal abscess, and Clostridioides difficile infections. And, as reported by this news organization in September, the FDA required its manufacturer, Pfizer, to add a boxed warning that includes information about the risks of stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death.

Upadacitinib may be more selective and reversible because it preferentially blocks JAK1 or JAK1/3. In August 2019, it received FDA approval at a dose of 15 mg for adult patients with moderately to severely active RA who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate.

But the FDA applied the same warnings to upadacitinib – and to a third related drug, baricitinib (Olumiant) – that it required for tofacitinib, even though they are not as well studied.

The FDA also limited approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.
 

A well-tolerated treatment

U-ACCOMPLISH is one of two phase 3 trials induction trials completed on upadacitinib.

Investigators randomized 522 people with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, defined as Adapted Mayo Score 5-9 with a centrally read endoscopic score of 2-3. Of those patients, the intent to treat population included 341 in the upadacitinib group (45 mg once daily) and 174 in the placebo group.

The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between groups. More than two-thirds of patients in both groups were White, and more than two-thirds were men. In the upadacitinib group, 50.7% had responded inadequately to biologic treatments, compared with 51.1% in the placebo group.

After 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib achieved clinical remission as defined by the adapted Mayo Score (stool frequency subscore ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1).

“In terms of the efficacy, I think it’s very, very promising,” said Derrick Eichele, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology-hepatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, who was not involved in the trial.

The efficacy data were similar to those reported for tofacitinib in clinical trials, he said in an interview. “But I think again, what we’re waiting to see is how is this going to be positioned in relation to tofacitinib in terms of safety profile.”

More patients in the upadacitinib group reported adverse events, including those deemed related to the drug. However, the proportion that were severe, serious, or led to discontinuation was higher in the placebo group. No one in the study died, and no one in the upadacitinib group had an adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event, tuberculosis, or malignancy.

The most common adverse events were acne, blood creatine phosphokinase elevation, and anemia, which were all more common in the upadacitinib group, and headache and worsening of ulcerative colitis, which were more common in the placebo group.

Among adverse events of special interest, anemia, neutropenia, hepatic disorder, lymphopenia, serious infection, and opportunistic infection were more common in the upadacitinib group than in the placebo group. The four opportunistic infections in the upadacitinib group included two cases of herpes zoster.

In reviewing the poster presented at this meeting, the cases of neutropenia and hepatic disorder in the upadacitinib group stood out for Dr. Eichele. But he said it’s hard to pass judgment based on this amount of data. He is looking forward to a peer-reviewed publication. “I’ll be interested to see what it shows in terms of the details.”

Phase 3 trials of upadacitinib are underway in atopic dermatitis, RA, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, Crohn’s disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis as well as ulcerative colitis.

In a 52-week maintenance trial, according to a press release, malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) included one event among 148 people taking a 15-mg dose of upadacitinib 15, two events among 154 people taking a 30-mg dose of upadacitinib, and one event among 149 people in the placebo group.

Two cases of pulmonary embolism were reported in the 15-mg group and two cases of deep vein thrombosis were reported in the 30-mg group, compared with one event of ovarian vein thrombosis in the placebo group. One adjudicated major cardiovascular event each were reported in the upadacitinib 30-mg group and the placebo group. No one died.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Loftus reported that he is a consultant for AbbVie as well as multiple other gastroenterology drug companies. Dr. Eichele disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – An oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) showed high efficacy and good safety as a treatment for ulcerative colitis in a phase 3 trial.

The finding could provide some reassurance after the Food and Drug Administration recently warned of an increased risk of cancer and heart disease associated with medications in the same class as upadacitinib.

“Serious adverse events were numerically lower in patients on upadacitinib, and discontinuations from the study due to adverse events were also lower” than in patients taking a placebo, said Edward Loftus, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Dr. Loftus presented the findings from the U-ACCOMPLISH study at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although other medications are approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, including biologics, many patients do not respond. In 2019, tofacitinib (Xeljanz) became the first JAK inhibitor approved for this condition. It works by blocking the JAK1 and JAK3 inflammation pathways, and at high concentrations, it also blocks the tyrosine kinase 2 and JAK2 pathways.

However, adverse events seen in clinical trials of tofacitinib include pneumonia, herpes zoster, anal abscess, and Clostridioides difficile infections. And, as reported by this news organization in September, the FDA required its manufacturer, Pfizer, to add a boxed warning that includes information about the risks of stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death.

Upadacitinib may be more selective and reversible because it preferentially blocks JAK1 or JAK1/3. In August 2019, it received FDA approval at a dose of 15 mg for adult patients with moderately to severely active RA who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate.

But the FDA applied the same warnings to upadacitinib – and to a third related drug, baricitinib (Olumiant) – that it required for tofacitinib, even though they are not as well studied.

The FDA also limited approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.
 

A well-tolerated treatment

U-ACCOMPLISH is one of two phase 3 trials induction trials completed on upadacitinib.

Investigators randomized 522 people with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, defined as Adapted Mayo Score 5-9 with a centrally read endoscopic score of 2-3. Of those patients, the intent to treat population included 341 in the upadacitinib group (45 mg once daily) and 174 in the placebo group.

The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between groups. More than two-thirds of patients in both groups were White, and more than two-thirds were men. In the upadacitinib group, 50.7% had responded inadequately to biologic treatments, compared with 51.1% in the placebo group.

After 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib achieved clinical remission as defined by the adapted Mayo Score (stool frequency subscore ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1).

“In terms of the efficacy, I think it’s very, very promising,” said Derrick Eichele, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology-hepatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, who was not involved in the trial.

The efficacy data were similar to those reported for tofacitinib in clinical trials, he said in an interview. “But I think again, what we’re waiting to see is how is this going to be positioned in relation to tofacitinib in terms of safety profile.”

More patients in the upadacitinib group reported adverse events, including those deemed related to the drug. However, the proportion that were severe, serious, or led to discontinuation was higher in the placebo group. No one in the study died, and no one in the upadacitinib group had an adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event, tuberculosis, or malignancy.

The most common adverse events were acne, blood creatine phosphokinase elevation, and anemia, which were all more common in the upadacitinib group, and headache and worsening of ulcerative colitis, which were more common in the placebo group.

Among adverse events of special interest, anemia, neutropenia, hepatic disorder, lymphopenia, serious infection, and opportunistic infection were more common in the upadacitinib group than in the placebo group. The four opportunistic infections in the upadacitinib group included two cases of herpes zoster.

In reviewing the poster presented at this meeting, the cases of neutropenia and hepatic disorder in the upadacitinib group stood out for Dr. Eichele. But he said it’s hard to pass judgment based on this amount of data. He is looking forward to a peer-reviewed publication. “I’ll be interested to see what it shows in terms of the details.”

Phase 3 trials of upadacitinib are underway in atopic dermatitis, RA, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, Crohn’s disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis as well as ulcerative colitis.

In a 52-week maintenance trial, according to a press release, malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) included one event among 148 people taking a 15-mg dose of upadacitinib 15, two events among 154 people taking a 30-mg dose of upadacitinib, and one event among 149 people in the placebo group.

Two cases of pulmonary embolism were reported in the 15-mg group and two cases of deep vein thrombosis were reported in the 30-mg group, compared with one event of ovarian vein thrombosis in the placebo group. One adjudicated major cardiovascular event each were reported in the upadacitinib 30-mg group and the placebo group. No one died.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Loftus reported that he is a consultant for AbbVie as well as multiple other gastroenterology drug companies. Dr. Eichele disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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