Conference Coverage

Identifying the phenomenon of post-exertional malaise (PEM) in patients with fatiguing conditions is critical because it necessitates a far more cautious approach to exercise, experts said.

PEM is a defining feature of the condition myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and it is present in many people with long COVID. It is characterized by a worsening of fatigue and of other symptoms after previously tolerated physical or mental exertion, typically emerging 24-72 hours after the exertion and lasting days or weeks thereafter. The experience is often called a “crash.”

In a study presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting, PEM was also identified in people with various rheumatologic conditions, ranging from 4% in those with osteoarthritis to 20% in those with fibromyalgia. The presence of PEM was also associated with worse pain, sleep, cognition, and other symptoms that are also characteristic of ME/CFS and many cases of long COVID.

“PEM assessment is becoming more important in those with long COVID, as we are assisting more of those with long durations of this condition. ... This is the first study we know of presenting PEM rates in a rheumatologic disease population,” Kaleb Michaud, PhD, director of FORWARD — The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases and professor of rheumatology and immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said at the meeting.

During the discussion period, study investigator Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, commented, “PEM is seen with numerous post-acute infectious sequelae. It segregates with that population of patients who meet the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, of which 50%-70% of people will also meet criteria for fibromyalgia…This is a first step, but it has big ramifications regarding exercise.”

In an interview with this news organization, Calabrese said, “We recommend exercise to virtually everyone with fibromyalgia who doesn’t have ME/CFS,” but that the assessment tool used in the study, the 5-item DePaul Symptoms Questionnaire, isn’t adequate for assessing true PEM that would preclude exercise, despite being validated. “That instrument is inexact and lacks specificity. ... It just shows where the field is. We need better biomarkers.”

 

In Those With PEM, Exercise May Harm

Asked to comment, Brayden P. Yellman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, told this news organization, “if there is an infection-associated chronic condition that meets criteria for what we would call ME/CFS or long COVID, and if there’s true post-exertional malaise, any graded exercise that ultimately leads to post-exertional malaise is harmful. ... There is a subset of people who have milder disease, who can sometimes do very mild exercise that does not trigger PEM, and they do see benefits over time very slowly with really carefully curated, carefully monitored exercise. But we have to be really careful.”

For the majority, however, the approach is to teach patients to pace their activities in order to avoid PEM, also referred to as staying within their “energy envelope.” Clinician resources are available on the Bateman Horne Center’s website.

This isn’t typically included in rheumatology training, Yellman noted. “Having completed an entire rheumatology fellowship and working in rheumatology, I was not taught at all about [then-termed] chronic fatigue syndrome. It was lumped under fibromyalgia. And of course, they teach about fibromyalgia because it’s a great mimic of a lot of inflammatory, rheumatologic conditions, but the idea of [PEM], that pathognomonic feature that we see in infection-associated chronic conditions, was not once mentioned when I trained, in 2014 to 2016.”

Nonetheless, he added, “rheumatologists are definitely seeing this in their fibromyalgia patients and some of their other patients at a high rate, and I’m sure that they’re missing it, along with other comorbidities like orthostatic hypotension.”

Another expert asked to weigh in, Todd Davenport, PT, DPT, PhD, professor and chair of the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, told this news organization: “Our experience is that the body’s responses to short bouts of exercise are abnormal, and graded exercise is unsuccessful and makes people worse. ... Clinicians should be particularly on the lookout for PEM in patients who are already reporting fatigue, such as with fibromyalgia and rheumatologic conditions that can have some diagnostic overlaps with ME/CFS, because you can get fooled into thinking that your well-meaning exercise program intended to help give them a little more juice during their daily activities actually might be harmful.”

There are several lines of evidence for abnormal responses to exercise in people with PEM, Davenport said. These include muscle worsening, cardiac preload failure and impaired systemic oxygen extraction, metabolic dysregulation, and abnormal immunologic and neurologic changes.

Several studies show impaired recovery after 2-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing, with the largest to date published in July 2024. Patients with PEM have also reported harm from prescribed exercise.

Yellman commented: “We think of PEM like an injury, where you need to recover. If you keep stacking injuries on top of it, that injury is never going to heal the same way again…We are still trying to understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS in general, and of PEM. But if you think of it as a neuroinflammatory injury, and there’s some evidence suggesting neuroinflammation, you can kind of understand the approach of needing to heal and to recover.”

 

How Prevalent Is PEM in Rheumatologic Conditions?

For the study presented at the ACR meeting, data of people with confirmed rheumatic diseases were taken from the ongoing longitudinal US-based research database FORWARD. Participants completed biannual self-reported questionnaires during January–June 2024 that included the 5-item PEM subscale from the validated DePaul Symptoms Questionnaire.

Questions relate to frequency and severity of each of the five items: “Dead, heavy feeling after starting to exercise,” “next-day soreness or fatigue after nonstrenuous, everyday activities,” “mentally tired after the slightest effort,” “minimum exercise makes you physically tired,” and “physically drained or sick after mild activity.” Participants are asked to rate each item on a scale from 0 if not present to 1 (mild/a little of the time) up to 4 (very severe/all of the time).

A positive PEM result was defined as a frequency of at least two and simultaneous severity of at least two on any survey item. Additional questions asked about recent and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections, long COVID diagnoses, and comorbidities.

Of 1158 individuals who completed the PEM questionnaire, 7.5% overall met PEM criteria. By individual condition, the proportions were 4.4% with osteoarthritis, 7.4% with rheumatoid arthritis, 12.2% with systemic lupus erythematosus, 13.8% with fibromyalgia diagnosed by rheumatologists, and 20.3% with fibromyalgia based on the 2016 revised ACR criteria.

The overall PEM prevalence was 8.3% among those reporting ever having COVID-19 and 9.5% among those who had COVID-19 during July–December 2023. The PEM prevalence increased more dramatically with more severe COVID-19 — 17.2% among those who had been hospitalized for COVID-19, 22.0% of those ever diagnosed with long COVID, and 28.1% with a long COVID diagnosis in January 2024.

By diagnosis, 50% of individuals who met the ACR’s 2016 fibromyalgia criteria and currently had long COVID scored positively for PEM.

Measures of pain, fatigue, sleep, patient global assessment, activity score, polysymptomatic distress, disability, depression, anxiety, and other functional scores were all significantly worse among those scoring positive for PEM (P < .001), Michaud reported.

 

Better Tools Are Available

The developer of the DePaul questionnaire, Leonard Jason, PhD, director of the Center for Community Research and professor of psychology at DePaul College of Science and Health, Chicago, Illinois, told this news organization that an updated 10-item screening tool specifically designed to screen for PEM adds some important elements missing from the 5-item version.

Here, patients are initially asked two questions: “Do you experience a worsening of your fatigue/energy related illness after engaging in minimal physical effort?” and “Do you experience a worsening of your fatigue/energy related illness after engaging in mental effort?” If they answer “yes” to either, the next question is “If you feel worse after activities, how long does this last?” Answers are coded from 0 to 6 (24 hours or more).

The fourth additional question then asks how quickly patients recover, while a fifth question asks whether the person is avoiding activity because it makes them feel worse (thereby potentially creating a false negative).

For those scoring positive on the 10-item screen, a more comprehensive measure could be used, such as this online screening tool, Jason said.

Yellman said that the Bateman Horne Center uses a “good day, bad day” questionnaire to tease out some of the same information. In addition, he noted that it’s important to capture the timeframe between the exertion and the onset of symptoms because PEM doesn’t start during or immediately after activity. “If somebody is mowing the lawn and they start feeling symptoms immediately, they’re probably, at least in ME/CFS, experiencing orthostatic intolerance. Post-exertional malaise occurs 12-72 hours later, when their function is severely reduced as compared to baseline.” 

And of course, Davenport noted, listening to patients is key. “Patients will tell you wildly unusual responses to activity before you even do the work of trying to figure out what the activity was. They’ll tell you things like they can’t think as well, that they have to be in bed for 3 days to a week to 2 weeks, depending on the level of exertion.”

Yellman, Davenport, and several other colleagues are currently working on a paper that will explain the differences between pacing and graded exercise, define PEM, and provide guidelines. They aim to submit it in time for publication early in 2025. In the meantime, the Bateman Horne Center’s website provides numerous resources for healthcare professionals and patients.

Yellman is also working to define minimum quality of care standards for infection-associated chronic conditions for state medical boards and to provide continuing medical education for clinicians on those standards. These would include recognizing and evaluating patients for PEM, as well as orthostatic intolerance, cognitive impairment, and other associated comorbidities.

Importantly, he said, the standards will include the principles of teaching people with PEM how to pace and will emphasize not prescribing them graded exercise as first- or even second-line therapy. “We need people to do some basic things. And the first thing is do no harm.”

None of the individuals quoted for this article had relevant financial disclosures.

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

Identifying the phenomenon of post-exertional malaise (PEM) in patients with fatiguing conditions is critical because it necessitates a far more cautious approach to exercise, experts said.

PEM is a defining feature of the condition myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and it is present in many people with long COVID. It is characterized by a worsening of fatigue and of other symptoms after previously tolerated physical or mental exertion, typically emerging 24-72 hours after the exertion and lasting days or weeks thereafter. The experience is often called a “crash.”

In a study presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting, PEM was also identified in people with various rheumatologic conditions, ranging from 4% in those with osteoarthritis to 20% in those with fibromyalgia. The presence of PEM was also associated with worse pain, sleep, cognition, and other symptoms that are also characteristic of ME/CFS and many cases of long COVID.

“PEM assessment is becoming more important in those with long COVID, as we are assisting more of those with long durations of this condition. ... This is the first study we know of presenting PEM rates in a rheumatologic disease population,” Kaleb Michaud, PhD, director of FORWARD — The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases and professor of rheumatology and immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said at the meeting.

During the discussion period, study investigator Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, commented, “PEM is seen with numerous post-acute infectious sequelae. It segregates with that population of patients who meet the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, of which 50%-70% of people will also meet criteria for fibromyalgia…This is a first step, but it has big ramifications regarding exercise.”

In an interview with this news organization, Calabrese said, “We recommend exercise to virtually everyone with fibromyalgia who doesn’t have ME/CFS,” but that the assessment tool used in the study, the 5-item DePaul Symptoms Questionnaire, isn’t adequate for assessing true PEM that would preclude exercise, despite being validated. “That instrument is inexact and lacks specificity. ... It just shows where the field is. We need better biomarkers.”

 

In Those With PEM, Exercise May Harm

Asked to comment, Brayden P. Yellman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, told this news organization, “if there is an infection-associated chronic condition that meets criteria for what we would call ME/CFS or long COVID, and if there’s true post-exertional malaise, any graded exercise that ultimately leads to post-exertional malaise is harmful. ... There is a subset of people who have milder disease, who can sometimes do very mild exercise that does not trigger PEM, and they do see benefits over time very slowly with really carefully curated, carefully monitored exercise. But we have to be really careful.”

For the majority, however, the approach is to teach patients to pace their activities in order to avoid PEM, also referred to as staying within their “energy envelope.” Clinician resources are available on the Bateman Horne Center’s website.

This isn’t typically included in rheumatology training, Yellman noted. “Having completed an entire rheumatology fellowship and working in rheumatology, I was not taught at all about [then-termed] chronic fatigue syndrome. It was lumped under fibromyalgia. And of course, they teach about fibromyalgia because it’s a great mimic of a lot of inflammatory, rheumatologic conditions, but the idea of [PEM], that pathognomonic feature that we see in infection-associated chronic conditions, was not once mentioned when I trained, in 2014 to 2016.”

Nonetheless, he added, “rheumatologists are definitely seeing this in their fibromyalgia patients and some of their other patients at a high rate, and I’m sure that they’re missing it, along with other comorbidities like orthostatic hypotension.”

Another expert asked to weigh in, Todd Davenport, PT, DPT, PhD, professor and chair of the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, told this news organization: “Our experience is that the body’s responses to short bouts of exercise are abnormal, and graded exercise is unsuccessful and makes people worse. ... Clinicians should be particularly on the lookout for PEM in patients who are already reporting fatigue, such as with fibromyalgia and rheumatologic conditions that can have some diagnostic overlaps with ME/CFS, because you can get fooled into thinking that your well-meaning exercise program intended to help give them a little more juice during their daily activities actually might be harmful.”

There are several lines of evidence for abnormal responses to exercise in people with PEM, Davenport said. These include muscle worsening, cardiac preload failure and impaired systemic oxygen extraction, metabolic dysregulation, and abnormal immunologic and neurologic changes.

Several studies show impaired recovery after 2-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing, with the largest to date published in July 2024. Patients with PEM have also reported harm from prescribed exercise.

Yellman commented: “We think of PEM like an injury, where you need to recover. If you keep stacking injuries on top of it, that injury is never going to heal the same way again…We are still trying to understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS in general, and of PEM. But if you think of it as a neuroinflammatory injury, and there’s some evidence suggesting neuroinflammation, you can kind of understand the approach of needing to heal and to recover.”

 

How Prevalent Is PEM in Rheumatologic Conditions?

For the study presented at the ACR meeting, data of people with confirmed rheumatic diseases were taken from the ongoing longitudinal US-based research database FORWARD. Participants completed biannual self-reported questionnaires during January–June 2024 that included the 5-item PEM subscale from the validated DePaul Symptoms Questionnaire.

Questions relate to frequency and severity of each of the five items: “Dead, heavy feeling after starting to exercise,” “next-day soreness or fatigue after nonstrenuous, everyday activities,” “mentally tired after the slightest effort,” “minimum exercise makes you physically tired,” and “physically drained or sick after mild activity.” Participants are asked to rate each item on a scale from 0 if not present to 1 (mild/a little of the time) up to 4 (very severe/all of the time).

A positive PEM result was defined as a frequency of at least two and simultaneous severity of at least two on any survey item. Additional questions asked about recent and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections, long COVID diagnoses, and comorbidities.

Of 1158 individuals who completed the PEM questionnaire, 7.5% overall met PEM criteria. By individual condition, the proportions were 4.4% with osteoarthritis, 7.4% with rheumatoid arthritis, 12.2% with systemic lupus erythematosus, 13.8% with fibromyalgia diagnosed by rheumatologists, and 20.3% with fibromyalgia based on the 2016 revised ACR criteria.

The overall PEM prevalence was 8.3% among those reporting ever having COVID-19 and 9.5% among those who had COVID-19 during July–December 2023. The PEM prevalence increased more dramatically with more severe COVID-19 — 17.2% among those who had been hospitalized for COVID-19, 22.0% of those ever diagnosed with long COVID, and 28.1% with a long COVID diagnosis in January 2024.

By diagnosis, 50% of individuals who met the ACR’s 2016 fibromyalgia criteria and currently had long COVID scored positively for PEM.

Measures of pain, fatigue, sleep, patient global assessment, activity score, polysymptomatic distress, disability, depression, anxiety, and other functional scores were all significantly worse among those scoring positive for PEM (P < .001), Michaud reported.

 

Better Tools Are Available

The developer of the DePaul questionnaire, Leonard Jason, PhD, director of the Center for Community Research and professor of psychology at DePaul College of Science and Health, Chicago, Illinois, told this news organization that an updated 10-item screening tool specifically designed to screen for PEM adds some important elements missing from the 5-item version.

Here, patients are initially asked two questions: “Do you experience a worsening of your fatigue/energy related illness after engaging in minimal physical effort?” and “Do you experience a worsening of your fatigue/energy related illness after engaging in mental effort?” If they answer “yes” to either, the next question is “If you feel worse after activities, how long does this last?” Answers are coded from 0 to 6 (24 hours or more).

The fourth additional question then asks how quickly patients recover, while a fifth question asks whether the person is avoiding activity because it makes them feel worse (thereby potentially creating a false negative).

For those scoring positive on the 10-item screen, a more comprehensive measure could be used, such as this online screening tool, Jason said.

Yellman said that the Bateman Horne Center uses a “good day, bad day” questionnaire to tease out some of the same information. In addition, he noted that it’s important to capture the timeframe between the exertion and the onset of symptoms because PEM doesn’t start during or immediately after activity. “If somebody is mowing the lawn and they start feeling symptoms immediately, they’re probably, at least in ME/CFS, experiencing orthostatic intolerance. Post-exertional malaise occurs 12-72 hours later, when their function is severely reduced as compared to baseline.” 

And of course, Davenport noted, listening to patients is key. “Patients will tell you wildly unusual responses to activity before you even do the work of trying to figure out what the activity was. They’ll tell you things like they can’t think as well, that they have to be in bed for 3 days to a week to 2 weeks, depending on the level of exertion.”

Yellman, Davenport, and several other colleagues are currently working on a paper that will explain the differences between pacing and graded exercise, define PEM, and provide guidelines. They aim to submit it in time for publication early in 2025. In the meantime, the Bateman Horne Center’s website provides numerous resources for healthcare professionals and patients.

Yellman is also working to define minimum quality of care standards for infection-associated chronic conditions for state medical boards and to provide continuing medical education for clinicians on those standards. These would include recognizing and evaluating patients for PEM, as well as orthostatic intolerance, cognitive impairment, and other associated comorbidities.

Importantly, he said, the standards will include the principles of teaching people with PEM how to pace and will emphasize not prescribing them graded exercise as first- or even second-line therapy. “We need people to do some basic things. And the first thing is do no harm.”

None of the individuals quoted for this article had relevant financial disclosures.

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

Identifying the phenomenon of post-exertional malaise (PEM) in patients with fatiguing conditions is critical because it necessitates a far more cautious approach to exercise, experts said.

PEM is a defining feature of the condition myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and it is present in many people with long COVID. It is characterized by a worsening of fatigue and of other symptoms after previously tolerated physical or mental exertion, typically emerging 24-72 hours after the exertion and lasting days or weeks thereafter. The experience is often called a “crash.”

In a study presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting, PEM was also identified in people with various rheumatologic conditions, ranging from 4% in those with osteoarthritis to 20% in those with fibromyalgia. The presence of PEM was also associated with worse pain, sleep, cognition, and other symptoms that are also characteristic of ME/CFS and many cases of long COVID.

“PEM assessment is becoming more important in those with long COVID, as we are assisting more of those with long durations of this condition. ... This is the first study we know of presenting PEM rates in a rheumatologic disease population,” Kaleb Michaud, PhD, director of FORWARD — The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases and professor of rheumatology and immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said at the meeting.

During the discussion period, study investigator Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, commented, “PEM is seen with numerous post-acute infectious sequelae. It segregates with that population of patients who meet the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, of which 50%-70% of people will also meet criteria for fibromyalgia…This is a first step, but it has big ramifications regarding exercise.”

In an interview with this news organization, Calabrese said, “We recommend exercise to virtually everyone with fibromyalgia who doesn’t have ME/CFS,” but that the assessment tool used in the study, the 5-item DePaul Symptoms Questionnaire, isn’t adequate for assessing true PEM that would preclude exercise, despite being validated. “That instrument is inexact and lacks specificity. ... It just shows where the field is. We need better biomarkers.”

 

In Those With PEM, Exercise May Harm

Asked to comment, Brayden P. Yellman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, told this news organization, “if there is an infection-associated chronic condition that meets criteria for what we would call ME/CFS or long COVID, and if there’s true post-exertional malaise, any graded exercise that ultimately leads to post-exertional malaise is harmful. ... There is a subset of people who have milder disease, who can sometimes do very mild exercise that does not trigger PEM, and they do see benefits over time very slowly with really carefully curated, carefully monitored exercise. But we have to be really careful.”

For the majority, however, the approach is to teach patients to pace their activities in order to avoid PEM, also referred to as staying within their “energy envelope.” Clinician resources are available on the Bateman Horne Center’s website.

This isn’t typically included in rheumatology training, Yellman noted. “Having completed an entire rheumatology fellowship and working in rheumatology, I was not taught at all about [then-termed] chronic fatigue syndrome. It was lumped under fibromyalgia. And of course, they teach about fibromyalgia because it’s a great mimic of a lot of inflammatory, rheumatologic conditions, but the idea of [PEM], that pathognomonic feature that we see in infection-associated chronic conditions, was not once mentioned when I trained, in 2014 to 2016.”

Nonetheless, he added, “rheumatologists are definitely seeing this in their fibromyalgia patients and some of their other patients at a high rate, and I’m sure that they’re missing it, along with other comorbidities like orthostatic hypotension.”

Another expert asked to weigh in, Todd Davenport, PT, DPT, PhD, professor and chair of the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, told this news organization: “Our experience is that the body’s responses to short bouts of exercise are abnormal, and graded exercise is unsuccessful and makes people worse. ... Clinicians should be particularly on the lookout for PEM in patients who are already reporting fatigue, such as with fibromyalgia and rheumatologic conditions that can have some diagnostic overlaps with ME/CFS, because you can get fooled into thinking that your well-meaning exercise program intended to help give them a little more juice during their daily activities actually might be harmful.”

There are several lines of evidence for abnormal responses to exercise in people with PEM, Davenport said. These include muscle worsening, cardiac preload failure and impaired systemic oxygen extraction, metabolic dysregulation, and abnormal immunologic and neurologic changes.

Several studies show impaired recovery after 2-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing, with the largest to date published in July 2024. Patients with PEM have also reported harm from prescribed exercise.

Yellman commented: “We think of PEM like an injury, where you need to recover. If you keep stacking injuries on top of it, that injury is never going to heal the same way again…We are still trying to understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS in general, and of PEM. But if you think of it as a neuroinflammatory injury, and there’s some evidence suggesting neuroinflammation, you can kind of understand the approach of needing to heal and to recover.”

 

How Prevalent Is PEM in Rheumatologic Conditions?

For the study presented at the ACR meeting, data of people with confirmed rheumatic diseases were taken from the ongoing longitudinal US-based research database FORWARD. Participants completed biannual self-reported questionnaires during January–June 2024 that included the 5-item PEM subscale from the validated DePaul Symptoms Questionnaire.

Questions relate to frequency and severity of each of the five items: “Dead, heavy feeling after starting to exercise,” “next-day soreness or fatigue after nonstrenuous, everyday activities,” “mentally tired after the slightest effort,” “minimum exercise makes you physically tired,” and “physically drained or sick after mild activity.” Participants are asked to rate each item on a scale from 0 if not present to 1 (mild/a little of the time) up to 4 (very severe/all of the time).

A positive PEM result was defined as a frequency of at least two and simultaneous severity of at least two on any survey item. Additional questions asked about recent and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections, long COVID diagnoses, and comorbidities.

Of 1158 individuals who completed the PEM questionnaire, 7.5% overall met PEM criteria. By individual condition, the proportions were 4.4% with osteoarthritis, 7.4% with rheumatoid arthritis, 12.2% with systemic lupus erythematosus, 13.8% with fibromyalgia diagnosed by rheumatologists, and 20.3% with fibromyalgia based on the 2016 revised ACR criteria.

The overall PEM prevalence was 8.3% among those reporting ever having COVID-19 and 9.5% among those who had COVID-19 during July–December 2023. The PEM prevalence increased more dramatically with more severe COVID-19 — 17.2% among those who had been hospitalized for COVID-19, 22.0% of those ever diagnosed with long COVID, and 28.1% with a long COVID diagnosis in January 2024.

By diagnosis, 50% of individuals who met the ACR’s 2016 fibromyalgia criteria and currently had long COVID scored positively for PEM.

Measures of pain, fatigue, sleep, patient global assessment, activity score, polysymptomatic distress, disability, depression, anxiety, and other functional scores were all significantly worse among those scoring positive for PEM (P < .001), Michaud reported.

 

Better Tools Are Available

The developer of the DePaul questionnaire, Leonard Jason, PhD, director of the Center for Community Research and professor of psychology at DePaul College of Science and Health, Chicago, Illinois, told this news organization that an updated 10-item screening tool specifically designed to screen for PEM adds some important elements missing from the 5-item version.

Here, patients are initially asked two questions: “Do you experience a worsening of your fatigue/energy related illness after engaging in minimal physical effort?” and “Do you experience a worsening of your fatigue/energy related illness after engaging in mental effort?” If they answer “yes” to either, the next question is “If you feel worse after activities, how long does this last?” Answers are coded from 0 to 6 (24 hours or more).

The fourth additional question then asks how quickly patients recover, while a fifth question asks whether the person is avoiding activity because it makes them feel worse (thereby potentially creating a false negative).

For those scoring positive on the 10-item screen, a more comprehensive measure could be used, such as this online screening tool, Jason said.

Yellman said that the Bateman Horne Center uses a “good day, bad day” questionnaire to tease out some of the same information. In addition, he noted that it’s important to capture the timeframe between the exertion and the onset of symptoms because PEM doesn’t start during or immediately after activity. “If somebody is mowing the lawn and they start feeling symptoms immediately, they’re probably, at least in ME/CFS, experiencing orthostatic intolerance. Post-exertional malaise occurs 12-72 hours later, when their function is severely reduced as compared to baseline.” 

And of course, Davenport noted, listening to patients is key. “Patients will tell you wildly unusual responses to activity before you even do the work of trying to figure out what the activity was. They’ll tell you things like they can’t think as well, that they have to be in bed for 3 days to a week to 2 weeks, depending on the level of exertion.”

Yellman, Davenport, and several other colleagues are currently working on a paper that will explain the differences between pacing and graded exercise, define PEM, and provide guidelines. They aim to submit it in time for publication early in 2025. In the meantime, the Bateman Horne Center’s website provides numerous resources for healthcare professionals and patients.

Yellman is also working to define minimum quality of care standards for infection-associated chronic conditions for state medical boards and to provide continuing medical education for clinicians on those standards. These would include recognizing and evaluating patients for PEM, as well as orthostatic intolerance, cognitive impairment, and other associated comorbidities.

Importantly, he said, the standards will include the principles of teaching people with PEM how to pace and will emphasize not prescribing them graded exercise as first- or even second-line therapy. “We need people to do some basic things. And the first thing is do no harm.”

None of the individuals quoted for this article had relevant financial disclosures.

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

The World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver held a symposium on December 11 to establish the European Alcohol Health Alliance to reduce alcohol-related harms across Europe. 

Europe has the highest levels of alcohol consumption in the world. Alcohol is the continent’s leading cause of death, accounting for almost 800,000 deaths per year, or 1 in 11 deaths in the region. 

This news organization spoke with Frank Murray, MBBCh, a consultant gastroenterologist and hepatologist at Bon Secours Hospital and Beaumont Private Clinic in Dublin, Ireland, who attended the symposium. The intention is to launch the European Alcohol Health Alliance in 2025. 

“We’d like to see evidence-based policies to reduce alcohol harm, which we think would be good for individual citizens and the economy,” said Murray. 

The symposium brought together multiple professional societies to discuss problems related to alcohol use, possible solutions, and their willingness to collaborate. Murray noted that attendees were enthusiastic about forming an alliance. 

Among the alliance’s first priorities, he noted, are changing the pricing and availability of alcohol, implementing restrictions in marketing and advertising, protecting children from alcohol harm, and labeling products with health warnings. 

“It’s interesting that the most dangerous product in the supermarket is sold without any nutrition or content information and without any warnings,” he said. 

 

‘David and Goliath’ 

This news organization also spoke with Barbara Broers, MD, professor of addiction medicine at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, who did not attend the meeting. 

She noted that although methods for reducing alcohol intake are well known, little action is taken to implement them. The alcohol industry is a major reason for this, she said, because it will “do everything to keep its business going.” 

One tactic, according to Broers and Murray, is heavy governmental lobbying. The industry’s resources for lobbying and advocating greatly outweigh any counterforce in what Murray described as a “bit of a David and Goliath” situation. 

“The alcohol industry should not have any role in policy making for alcohol, because it has a conflict of interest that clearly gets in the way of giving public health advice. It wants to maximize profits, while public health requires policies to reduce alcohol consumption,” he noted. 

Among the aims of the European Alcohol Health Alliance is “to rebalance the battle between those advocating for and against alcohol,” he continued.

 

Public Misperceptions

Although alcohol’s harmful effects on the liver are well known, Broers and Murray noted that its other effects are less known. 

A 2024 study found that whereas 90% of Europeans are aware of alcohol’s causal role in liver disease, just 68% are aware of a causal role for heart diseases and 53% for cancer. And only 15% were aware of a causal link with female breast cancer, even though drinking alcohol causes up to 1 in 10 cases of breast cancer.

Adding to a general lack of public awareness, methodologically flawed research may have generated a false impression that moderate drinking is beneficial for health, according to a s ystematic review and meta-analysis of 107 longitudinal studies. 

Broers noted that more work must be done to increase public knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol, and especially its link to cancer. “We now know that a person’s risk of cancer increases right from the first drink, but I think the people don’t know this,” she said. 

“Local context and culture have a significant impact on the prevalence of alcohol consumption within a population, as well as the pattern of alcohol consumption,” Andrew Smyth, MBBCh, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Galway in Ireland, told this news organization. 

“Each country, region, and area are likely to need culturally appropriate and socially acceptable solutions to overcome their own hurdles,” he added.

 

Normalizing Abstinence

“Alcohol is involved in our social lives in so many ways. Reducing it would be Sisyphus’s work,” said Bernhard Maisch, MD, professor at Philipps University of Marburg, Germany. 

Jelena Šarić Posavec, a former PhD student at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, said that, while numerous obstacles make addressing alcohol-related harms difficult in Europe, solutions exist, too. 

Broers noted, for example, that Germany is working to change social perceptions around not drinking. “No alcohol should be the norm and should be considered positive. People should know that they might feel much better if they don’t drink at all.” 

Short-term improvements from abstaining from alcohol may be felt in sleep and energy levels, with long-term health effects ranging from weight to liver health and cancer risk, she noted. The problem, she said, however, lies in how to communicate this message. 

Murray, Broers, Smyth, Maisch, and Posavec reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver held a symposium on December 11 to establish the European Alcohol Health Alliance to reduce alcohol-related harms across Europe. 

Europe has the highest levels of alcohol consumption in the world. Alcohol is the continent’s leading cause of death, accounting for almost 800,000 deaths per year, or 1 in 11 deaths in the region. 

This news organization spoke with Frank Murray, MBBCh, a consultant gastroenterologist and hepatologist at Bon Secours Hospital and Beaumont Private Clinic in Dublin, Ireland, who attended the symposium. The intention is to launch the European Alcohol Health Alliance in 2025. 

“We’d like to see evidence-based policies to reduce alcohol harm, which we think would be good for individual citizens and the economy,” said Murray. 

The symposium brought together multiple professional societies to discuss problems related to alcohol use, possible solutions, and their willingness to collaborate. Murray noted that attendees were enthusiastic about forming an alliance. 

Among the alliance’s first priorities, he noted, are changing the pricing and availability of alcohol, implementing restrictions in marketing and advertising, protecting children from alcohol harm, and labeling products with health warnings. 

“It’s interesting that the most dangerous product in the supermarket is sold without any nutrition or content information and without any warnings,” he said. 

 

‘David and Goliath’ 

This news organization also spoke with Barbara Broers, MD, professor of addiction medicine at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, who did not attend the meeting. 

She noted that although methods for reducing alcohol intake are well known, little action is taken to implement them. The alcohol industry is a major reason for this, she said, because it will “do everything to keep its business going.” 

One tactic, according to Broers and Murray, is heavy governmental lobbying. The industry’s resources for lobbying and advocating greatly outweigh any counterforce in what Murray described as a “bit of a David and Goliath” situation. 

“The alcohol industry should not have any role in policy making for alcohol, because it has a conflict of interest that clearly gets in the way of giving public health advice. It wants to maximize profits, while public health requires policies to reduce alcohol consumption,” he noted. 

Among the aims of the European Alcohol Health Alliance is “to rebalance the battle between those advocating for and against alcohol,” he continued.

 

Public Misperceptions

Although alcohol’s harmful effects on the liver are well known, Broers and Murray noted that its other effects are less known. 

A 2024 study found that whereas 90% of Europeans are aware of alcohol’s causal role in liver disease, just 68% are aware of a causal role for heart diseases and 53% for cancer. And only 15% were aware of a causal link with female breast cancer, even though drinking alcohol causes up to 1 in 10 cases of breast cancer.

Adding to a general lack of public awareness, methodologically flawed research may have generated a false impression that moderate drinking is beneficial for health, according to a s ystematic review and meta-analysis of 107 longitudinal studies. 

Broers noted that more work must be done to increase public knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol, and especially its link to cancer. “We now know that a person’s risk of cancer increases right from the first drink, but I think the people don’t know this,” she said. 

“Local context and culture have a significant impact on the prevalence of alcohol consumption within a population, as well as the pattern of alcohol consumption,” Andrew Smyth, MBBCh, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Galway in Ireland, told this news organization. 

“Each country, region, and area are likely to need culturally appropriate and socially acceptable solutions to overcome their own hurdles,” he added.

 

Normalizing Abstinence

“Alcohol is involved in our social lives in so many ways. Reducing it would be Sisyphus’s work,” said Bernhard Maisch, MD, professor at Philipps University of Marburg, Germany. 

Jelena Šarić Posavec, a former PhD student at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, said that, while numerous obstacles make addressing alcohol-related harms difficult in Europe, solutions exist, too. 

Broers noted, for example, that Germany is working to change social perceptions around not drinking. “No alcohol should be the norm and should be considered positive. People should know that they might feel much better if they don’t drink at all.” 

Short-term improvements from abstaining from alcohol may be felt in sleep and energy levels, with long-term health effects ranging from weight to liver health and cancer risk, she noted. The problem, she said, however, lies in how to communicate this message. 

Murray, Broers, Smyth, Maisch, and Posavec reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver held a symposium on December 11 to establish the European Alcohol Health Alliance to reduce alcohol-related harms across Europe. 

Europe has the highest levels of alcohol consumption in the world. Alcohol is the continent’s leading cause of death, accounting for almost 800,000 deaths per year, or 1 in 11 deaths in the region. 

This news organization spoke with Frank Murray, MBBCh, a consultant gastroenterologist and hepatologist at Bon Secours Hospital and Beaumont Private Clinic in Dublin, Ireland, who attended the symposium. The intention is to launch the European Alcohol Health Alliance in 2025. 

“We’d like to see evidence-based policies to reduce alcohol harm, which we think would be good for individual citizens and the economy,” said Murray. 

The symposium brought together multiple professional societies to discuss problems related to alcohol use, possible solutions, and their willingness to collaborate. Murray noted that attendees were enthusiastic about forming an alliance. 

Among the alliance’s first priorities, he noted, are changing the pricing and availability of alcohol, implementing restrictions in marketing and advertising, protecting children from alcohol harm, and labeling products with health warnings. 

“It’s interesting that the most dangerous product in the supermarket is sold without any nutrition or content information and without any warnings,” he said. 

 

‘David and Goliath’ 

This news organization also spoke with Barbara Broers, MD, professor of addiction medicine at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, who did not attend the meeting. 

She noted that although methods for reducing alcohol intake are well known, little action is taken to implement them. The alcohol industry is a major reason for this, she said, because it will “do everything to keep its business going.” 

One tactic, according to Broers and Murray, is heavy governmental lobbying. The industry’s resources for lobbying and advocating greatly outweigh any counterforce in what Murray described as a “bit of a David and Goliath” situation. 

“The alcohol industry should not have any role in policy making for alcohol, because it has a conflict of interest that clearly gets in the way of giving public health advice. It wants to maximize profits, while public health requires policies to reduce alcohol consumption,” he noted. 

Among the aims of the European Alcohol Health Alliance is “to rebalance the battle between those advocating for and against alcohol,” he continued.

 

Public Misperceptions

Although alcohol’s harmful effects on the liver are well known, Broers and Murray noted that its other effects are less known. 

A 2024 study found that whereas 90% of Europeans are aware of alcohol’s causal role in liver disease, just 68% are aware of a causal role for heart diseases and 53% for cancer. And only 15% were aware of a causal link with female breast cancer, even though drinking alcohol causes up to 1 in 10 cases of breast cancer.

Adding to a general lack of public awareness, methodologically flawed research may have generated a false impression that moderate drinking is beneficial for health, according to a s ystematic review and meta-analysis of 107 longitudinal studies. 

Broers noted that more work must be done to increase public knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol, and especially its link to cancer. “We now know that a person’s risk of cancer increases right from the first drink, but I think the people don’t know this,” she said. 

“Local context and culture have a significant impact on the prevalence of alcohol consumption within a population, as well as the pattern of alcohol consumption,” Andrew Smyth, MBBCh, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Galway in Ireland, told this news organization. 

“Each country, region, and area are likely to need culturally appropriate and socially acceptable solutions to overcome their own hurdles,” he added.

 

Normalizing Abstinence

“Alcohol is involved in our social lives in so many ways. Reducing it would be Sisyphus’s work,” said Bernhard Maisch, MD, professor at Philipps University of Marburg, Germany. 

Jelena Šarić Posavec, a former PhD student at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, said that, while numerous obstacles make addressing alcohol-related harms difficult in Europe, solutions exist, too. 

Broers noted, for example, that Germany is working to change social perceptions around not drinking. “No alcohol should be the norm and should be considered positive. People should know that they might feel much better if they don’t drink at all.” 

Short-term improvements from abstaining from alcohol may be felt in sleep and energy levels, with long-term health effects ranging from weight to liver health and cancer risk, she noted. The problem, she said, however, lies in how to communicate this message. 

Murray, Broers, Smyth, Maisch, and Posavec reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6r) inhibition is a promising approach for the treatment of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), although no prospective studies have been conducted to date. Nevertheless, a retrospective analysis of patients treated with the IL-6r inhibitor tocilizumab, presented at American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting, showed improved CPPD control in more than two thirds of patients who had failed or could not tolerate usual therapies.

Both the monosodium urate (MSU) crystals associated with gout and CPP crystals induce inflammation dependent on IL-1 beta, but IL-1 beta inhibitors have been investigated more as treatments for gout than for CPPD, and they are recommended by both ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines for patients with gout who have flares despite efforts to treat with colchicine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids. However, IL-1 beta inhibitors are sometimes used off label in CPPD.

There are similarities among the various crystal types that induce arthritis, typically producing similar clinical features of acute arthritis and severe pain and local inflammation and tending to self-resolve within days to weeks. Those shared clinical features suggest common inflammatory mechanisms, likely stemming from the innate immune system, said Augustin Latourte, MD, PhD, of Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France, during a talk on the topic at the annual research symposium of the Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

CPPD management is generally derived from strategies developed for gout, but there is little evidence supporting IL-1 beta inhibitors outside of case reports, he said. One clinical trial published in 2020 showed efficacy of the IL-1 inhibitor anakinra, but the study was halted due to low patient recruitment, resulting in a small study population. In that study, “anakinra seems to have a faster onset of action than prednisone and could be useful in specific situations regarding acute CPPD arthritis. But it’s not relevant for chronic CPPD arthritis when you have persistent polyarthritis requiring chronic treatment. Anakinra requires daily injections and may not be appropriate in this situation,” he said.

IL-6r inhibition has been studied since IL-6 was first discovered in 1989 as a mediator of inflammatory responses in gout and CPPD, when it was shown that both CPP and MSU crystals can stimulate its production. In monocytes, IL-6 is expressed at higher levels than IL-1 beta in response to both CPP and MSU crystals. IL-6 production in monocytes in response to crystals is dependent on IL-1, and IL-1 inhibition reduces IL-6 production. “So the hypothesis is that IL-1 beta is the first event, and the production of IL-6 and the amplification of crystal inflammation occurs downstream before the self-limitation of the crystal-induced arthritis. IL-6 may be a very important event in the onset of crystal-induced inflammation,” Latourte said.

 

Building on Mechanistic Insights to Test Off-Label Use of Tocilizumab

Inspired by this insight, Latourte’s group tested tocilizumab in a 28-year-old man with a familial ANKH mutation who had not responded to anakinra and other conventional treatments. The patient experienced a reduction in flare intensity in the first month after the initial treatment and no flares after the second tocilizumab infusion. The group went on to test tocilizumab in 10 additional patients with CPPD (median age, 62.5 years), including 6 with idiopathic CPPD, 3 with Gitelman syndrome, and 1 with ANKH mutation. The clinical presentation included four with recurrent acute arthritis and six with chronic polyarthritis, and all had x-ray–proven disease, with a median visual analog scale (VAS) of 60 mm out of 100 mm. Tocilizumab was administered intravenously or subcutaneously. At 3 months, there was a median improvement of 30 mm in the VAS. Treatment efficacy continued for a median follow-up of 5.5 months at the time of publication, and the researchers have noted ongoing efficacy out to 50 months for some patients.

Tocilizumab has gone on to more frequent use in Europe as a second- or third-line therapy for CPPD, which led Latourte and his colleagues to perform the retrospective analysis that they presented at the ACR meeting. It included 55 patients who received tocilizumab for chronic inflammatory CPPD at two university hospitals. Participants had a median age of 72 years, and 67.3% were women. The patient group included 39 with chronic CPPD, 14 with recurrent acute CPPD (who experienced 0-4 attacks per month), and two patients with mixed CPPD. All participants had been treated with colchicine, and 20 had been treated also with prednisone and 24 with anakinra. Patients had stopped anakinra because it was either ineffective (n = 13) or poorly tolerated (n = 11).

Tocilizumab was administered intravenously in 46 patients and subcutaneously in nine patients for a median duration of 16.5 months (range, 0.8-76.4 months). The median VAS for pain (0- to 100-mm scale) dropped from 60 mm at baseline to 40 mm at 3 months and 30 mm at 6 months. There were 21 adverse events, including 8 cytopenias, 6 transaminase elevations, 4 infections (two severe), and 3 injection-site reactions. After a median of 7.8 months, 26 patients discontinued tocilizumab because of lack of efficacy in 15 patients and intolerance in 11. Among those who continued on tocilizumab, the median length of treatment was 26.0 months (range, 3-76.5 months).

 

Comments on the Study

The study population had some unusual characteristics, according to G-CAN President Robert Terkeltaub, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “Almost half the patients had received anakinra and then, basically, they failed. In about half of the people who got anakinra, it didn’t work, and in the other half, it wasn’t well tolerated. It’s just rather odd. I find anakinra reasonably well tolerated by people, but we’re dealing with an older population of patients, and the subcutaneous administration of anakinra sometimes can give you injection site reactions, but people started off with a pain level that was close to what we register as severe pain, and the pain level decreased,” he said.

Treatment decisions can be difficult in patients with chronic or acute recurrent CPPD, said Terkeltaub, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “What’s the lesser evil? Putting people on chronic prednisone is really hard on patients or using a biologic that’s more of an immunologic scalpel here, and more selective, and trying to get people through a long course of therapy. If you have chronic arthritis, it took a while for it to get chronic, and it generally doesn’t go away overnight.”

Terkeltaub also pointed out the gastrointestinal side effects of IL-6r inhibitors, which can include diverticulitis, but there are also concerns over infections and lipid and liver abnormalities. Subcutaneously injected tocilizumab also has a longer half-life than something like anakinra.

Beyond the retrospective nature of the study and the limits it imposes on conclusions that can be drawn, Terkeltaub noted a lack of data on the number of “inflamed joints [in each patient] and what the functioning of the patients was.”

Still, the findings are encouraging. “What I can glean from this study is that the first biologic drug might be an IL-6 inhibitor, but you really need prospective, controlled, blinded clinical trials to know, and it’s hard. It’s just hard to do those trials” because patients tend to be of advanced age, Terkeltaub said.

Latourte said a randomized controlled trial of tocilizumab vs placebo, called TociCCAre, is planned to begin in France in 2025.

Latourte has financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Roche Chugai, AbbVie, Arsylab, Celltrion, Janssen, Nordic, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, Biogen, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Terkeltaub had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6r) inhibition is a promising approach for the treatment of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), although no prospective studies have been conducted to date. Nevertheless, a retrospective analysis of patients treated with the IL-6r inhibitor tocilizumab, presented at American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting, showed improved CPPD control in more than two thirds of patients who had failed or could not tolerate usual therapies.

Both the monosodium urate (MSU) crystals associated with gout and CPP crystals induce inflammation dependent on IL-1 beta, but IL-1 beta inhibitors have been investigated more as treatments for gout than for CPPD, and they are recommended by both ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines for patients with gout who have flares despite efforts to treat with colchicine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids. However, IL-1 beta inhibitors are sometimes used off label in CPPD.

There are similarities among the various crystal types that induce arthritis, typically producing similar clinical features of acute arthritis and severe pain and local inflammation and tending to self-resolve within days to weeks. Those shared clinical features suggest common inflammatory mechanisms, likely stemming from the innate immune system, said Augustin Latourte, MD, PhD, of Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France, during a talk on the topic at the annual research symposium of the Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

CPPD management is generally derived from strategies developed for gout, but there is little evidence supporting IL-1 beta inhibitors outside of case reports, he said. One clinical trial published in 2020 showed efficacy of the IL-1 inhibitor anakinra, but the study was halted due to low patient recruitment, resulting in a small study population. In that study, “anakinra seems to have a faster onset of action than prednisone and could be useful in specific situations regarding acute CPPD arthritis. But it’s not relevant for chronic CPPD arthritis when you have persistent polyarthritis requiring chronic treatment. Anakinra requires daily injections and may not be appropriate in this situation,” he said.

IL-6r inhibition has been studied since IL-6 was first discovered in 1989 as a mediator of inflammatory responses in gout and CPPD, when it was shown that both CPP and MSU crystals can stimulate its production. In monocytes, IL-6 is expressed at higher levels than IL-1 beta in response to both CPP and MSU crystals. IL-6 production in monocytes in response to crystals is dependent on IL-1, and IL-1 inhibition reduces IL-6 production. “So the hypothesis is that IL-1 beta is the first event, and the production of IL-6 and the amplification of crystal inflammation occurs downstream before the self-limitation of the crystal-induced arthritis. IL-6 may be a very important event in the onset of crystal-induced inflammation,” Latourte said.

 

Building on Mechanistic Insights to Test Off-Label Use of Tocilizumab

Inspired by this insight, Latourte’s group tested tocilizumab in a 28-year-old man with a familial ANKH mutation who had not responded to anakinra and other conventional treatments. The patient experienced a reduction in flare intensity in the first month after the initial treatment and no flares after the second tocilizumab infusion. The group went on to test tocilizumab in 10 additional patients with CPPD (median age, 62.5 years), including 6 with idiopathic CPPD, 3 with Gitelman syndrome, and 1 with ANKH mutation. The clinical presentation included four with recurrent acute arthritis and six with chronic polyarthritis, and all had x-ray–proven disease, with a median visual analog scale (VAS) of 60 mm out of 100 mm. Tocilizumab was administered intravenously or subcutaneously. At 3 months, there was a median improvement of 30 mm in the VAS. Treatment efficacy continued for a median follow-up of 5.5 months at the time of publication, and the researchers have noted ongoing efficacy out to 50 months for some patients.

Tocilizumab has gone on to more frequent use in Europe as a second- or third-line therapy for CPPD, which led Latourte and his colleagues to perform the retrospective analysis that they presented at the ACR meeting. It included 55 patients who received tocilizumab for chronic inflammatory CPPD at two university hospitals. Participants had a median age of 72 years, and 67.3% were women. The patient group included 39 with chronic CPPD, 14 with recurrent acute CPPD (who experienced 0-4 attacks per month), and two patients with mixed CPPD. All participants had been treated with colchicine, and 20 had been treated also with prednisone and 24 with anakinra. Patients had stopped anakinra because it was either ineffective (n = 13) or poorly tolerated (n = 11).

Tocilizumab was administered intravenously in 46 patients and subcutaneously in nine patients for a median duration of 16.5 months (range, 0.8-76.4 months). The median VAS for pain (0- to 100-mm scale) dropped from 60 mm at baseline to 40 mm at 3 months and 30 mm at 6 months. There were 21 adverse events, including 8 cytopenias, 6 transaminase elevations, 4 infections (two severe), and 3 injection-site reactions. After a median of 7.8 months, 26 patients discontinued tocilizumab because of lack of efficacy in 15 patients and intolerance in 11. Among those who continued on tocilizumab, the median length of treatment was 26.0 months (range, 3-76.5 months).

 

Comments on the Study

The study population had some unusual characteristics, according to G-CAN President Robert Terkeltaub, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “Almost half the patients had received anakinra and then, basically, they failed. In about half of the people who got anakinra, it didn’t work, and in the other half, it wasn’t well tolerated. It’s just rather odd. I find anakinra reasonably well tolerated by people, but we’re dealing with an older population of patients, and the subcutaneous administration of anakinra sometimes can give you injection site reactions, but people started off with a pain level that was close to what we register as severe pain, and the pain level decreased,” he said.

Treatment decisions can be difficult in patients with chronic or acute recurrent CPPD, said Terkeltaub, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “What’s the lesser evil? Putting people on chronic prednisone is really hard on patients or using a biologic that’s more of an immunologic scalpel here, and more selective, and trying to get people through a long course of therapy. If you have chronic arthritis, it took a while for it to get chronic, and it generally doesn’t go away overnight.”

Terkeltaub also pointed out the gastrointestinal side effects of IL-6r inhibitors, which can include diverticulitis, but there are also concerns over infections and lipid and liver abnormalities. Subcutaneously injected tocilizumab also has a longer half-life than something like anakinra.

Beyond the retrospective nature of the study and the limits it imposes on conclusions that can be drawn, Terkeltaub noted a lack of data on the number of “inflamed joints [in each patient] and what the functioning of the patients was.”

Still, the findings are encouraging. “What I can glean from this study is that the first biologic drug might be an IL-6 inhibitor, but you really need prospective, controlled, blinded clinical trials to know, and it’s hard. It’s just hard to do those trials” because patients tend to be of advanced age, Terkeltaub said.

Latourte said a randomized controlled trial of tocilizumab vs placebo, called TociCCAre, is planned to begin in France in 2025.

Latourte has financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Roche Chugai, AbbVie, Arsylab, Celltrion, Janssen, Nordic, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, Biogen, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Terkeltaub had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6r) inhibition is a promising approach for the treatment of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), although no prospective studies have been conducted to date. Nevertheless, a retrospective analysis of patients treated with the IL-6r inhibitor tocilizumab, presented at American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting, showed improved CPPD control in more than two thirds of patients who had failed or could not tolerate usual therapies.

Both the monosodium urate (MSU) crystals associated with gout and CPP crystals induce inflammation dependent on IL-1 beta, but IL-1 beta inhibitors have been investigated more as treatments for gout than for CPPD, and they are recommended by both ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines for patients with gout who have flares despite efforts to treat with colchicine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids. However, IL-1 beta inhibitors are sometimes used off label in CPPD.

There are similarities among the various crystal types that induce arthritis, typically producing similar clinical features of acute arthritis and severe pain and local inflammation and tending to self-resolve within days to weeks. Those shared clinical features suggest common inflammatory mechanisms, likely stemming from the innate immune system, said Augustin Latourte, MD, PhD, of Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France, during a talk on the topic at the annual research symposium of the Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

CPPD management is generally derived from strategies developed for gout, but there is little evidence supporting IL-1 beta inhibitors outside of case reports, he said. One clinical trial published in 2020 showed efficacy of the IL-1 inhibitor anakinra, but the study was halted due to low patient recruitment, resulting in a small study population. In that study, “anakinra seems to have a faster onset of action than prednisone and could be useful in specific situations regarding acute CPPD arthritis. But it’s not relevant for chronic CPPD arthritis when you have persistent polyarthritis requiring chronic treatment. Anakinra requires daily injections and may not be appropriate in this situation,” he said.

IL-6r inhibition has been studied since IL-6 was first discovered in 1989 as a mediator of inflammatory responses in gout and CPPD, when it was shown that both CPP and MSU crystals can stimulate its production. In monocytes, IL-6 is expressed at higher levels than IL-1 beta in response to both CPP and MSU crystals. IL-6 production in monocytes in response to crystals is dependent on IL-1, and IL-1 inhibition reduces IL-6 production. “So the hypothesis is that IL-1 beta is the first event, and the production of IL-6 and the amplification of crystal inflammation occurs downstream before the self-limitation of the crystal-induced arthritis. IL-6 may be a very important event in the onset of crystal-induced inflammation,” Latourte said.

 

Building on Mechanistic Insights to Test Off-Label Use of Tocilizumab

Inspired by this insight, Latourte’s group tested tocilizumab in a 28-year-old man with a familial ANKH mutation who had not responded to anakinra and other conventional treatments. The patient experienced a reduction in flare intensity in the first month after the initial treatment and no flares after the second tocilizumab infusion. The group went on to test tocilizumab in 10 additional patients with CPPD (median age, 62.5 years), including 6 with idiopathic CPPD, 3 with Gitelman syndrome, and 1 with ANKH mutation. The clinical presentation included four with recurrent acute arthritis and six with chronic polyarthritis, and all had x-ray–proven disease, with a median visual analog scale (VAS) of 60 mm out of 100 mm. Tocilizumab was administered intravenously or subcutaneously. At 3 months, there was a median improvement of 30 mm in the VAS. Treatment efficacy continued for a median follow-up of 5.5 months at the time of publication, and the researchers have noted ongoing efficacy out to 50 months for some patients.

Tocilizumab has gone on to more frequent use in Europe as a second- or third-line therapy for CPPD, which led Latourte and his colleagues to perform the retrospective analysis that they presented at the ACR meeting. It included 55 patients who received tocilizumab for chronic inflammatory CPPD at two university hospitals. Participants had a median age of 72 years, and 67.3% were women. The patient group included 39 with chronic CPPD, 14 with recurrent acute CPPD (who experienced 0-4 attacks per month), and two patients with mixed CPPD. All participants had been treated with colchicine, and 20 had been treated also with prednisone and 24 with anakinra. Patients had stopped anakinra because it was either ineffective (n = 13) or poorly tolerated (n = 11).

Tocilizumab was administered intravenously in 46 patients and subcutaneously in nine patients for a median duration of 16.5 months (range, 0.8-76.4 months). The median VAS for pain (0- to 100-mm scale) dropped from 60 mm at baseline to 40 mm at 3 months and 30 mm at 6 months. There were 21 adverse events, including 8 cytopenias, 6 transaminase elevations, 4 infections (two severe), and 3 injection-site reactions. After a median of 7.8 months, 26 patients discontinued tocilizumab because of lack of efficacy in 15 patients and intolerance in 11. Among those who continued on tocilizumab, the median length of treatment was 26.0 months (range, 3-76.5 months).

 

Comments on the Study

The study population had some unusual characteristics, according to G-CAN President Robert Terkeltaub, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “Almost half the patients had received anakinra and then, basically, they failed. In about half of the people who got anakinra, it didn’t work, and in the other half, it wasn’t well tolerated. It’s just rather odd. I find anakinra reasonably well tolerated by people, but we’re dealing with an older population of patients, and the subcutaneous administration of anakinra sometimes can give you injection site reactions, but people started off with a pain level that was close to what we register as severe pain, and the pain level decreased,” he said.

Treatment decisions can be difficult in patients with chronic or acute recurrent CPPD, said Terkeltaub, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “What’s the lesser evil? Putting people on chronic prednisone is really hard on patients or using a biologic that’s more of an immunologic scalpel here, and more selective, and trying to get people through a long course of therapy. If you have chronic arthritis, it took a while for it to get chronic, and it generally doesn’t go away overnight.”

Terkeltaub also pointed out the gastrointestinal side effects of IL-6r inhibitors, which can include diverticulitis, but there are also concerns over infections and lipid and liver abnormalities. Subcutaneously injected tocilizumab also has a longer half-life than something like anakinra.

Beyond the retrospective nature of the study and the limits it imposes on conclusions that can be drawn, Terkeltaub noted a lack of data on the number of “inflamed joints [in each patient] and what the functioning of the patients was.”

Still, the findings are encouraging. “What I can glean from this study is that the first biologic drug might be an IL-6 inhibitor, but you really need prospective, controlled, blinded clinical trials to know, and it’s hard. It’s just hard to do those trials” because patients tend to be of advanced age, Terkeltaub said.

Latourte said a randomized controlled trial of tocilizumab vs placebo, called TociCCAre, is planned to begin in France in 2025.

Latourte has financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Roche Chugai, AbbVie, Arsylab, Celltrion, Janssen, Nordic, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, Biogen, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Terkeltaub had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

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

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

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

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

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

NEW YORK, NY — Work over the past several years has reframed hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as a large-field inflammatory process, a recharacterization that has immediate relevance to treatment strategies and goals, according to two investigators intimately involved in much of the recent progress.

“Success is being achieved by targeting multiple inflammatory axes in HS, and therapeutics are evolving rapidly,” reported James G. Krueger, MD, PhD, head of the Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

The activity of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies — bimekizumab just joined adalimumab and secukinumab as a third approved biologic for HS — is not news, but the degree to which inflammation is upregulated systemically, not just at areas of skin involvement, has changed the conceptualization of HS.

HS Is a Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Relative to psoriasis, for which there are many parallels, “HS is hugely more inflammatory in the systemic circulation,” Krueger said at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024. Yet, HS is also more complex involving additional pathways that appear to include dysbiosis. The concept of follicular occlusion, once a common explanation for HS, has been left far behind.

“Unlike psoriasis, which we can treat really well by inhibiting a single pathway target, HS is just not that simple,” Krueger said. Although largely an inflammatory process, the cascade of inflammatory factors for specific manifestations, such as tunnels, means that optimal therapy in one case might have little benefit in another.

The relatively new evidence that HS activity is not confined to lesional skin might be the most important recent step toward new strategies to target disease. These studies were performed by Kristina Navrazhina, MD, PhD, now a resident in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She received her PhD while studying HS activity in non-lesional skin. Her work has led her to conclude that the best chance for better outcomes in HS is early diagnosis and treatment. Although this is generally true of any pathology, the changes in the HS phenotype once fistulae form includes a poor response to conventional therapies. 

In fact, based on her work in evaluating HS activity in non-lesional skin, Navrazhina has shown that “many patients with modest lesions already have advanced disease.” Consistent with the premise that HS is a deeply systemic inflammatory process, nodules, considered an early manifestation, turn out to be “the tip of the iceberg.”

 

Non-Lesional HS Skin Is Inflamed

When she has employed RNA sequencing based on tape strip sampling from completely normal skin away from nodules, interleukin (IL)-17 and a broad array of other inflammatory markers were found to be upregulated. When she performed ultrasound to look for disease activity under the normal skin, she has often found tunnels already formed. Doppler ultrasound showed some of these tunnels were actively draining.

This might provide a partial explanation for why therapies are not always effective even when clinical signs of disease are modest. 

“Are we missing the opportunity for intervening?” Navrazhina asked, noting that early intervention has been limited traditionally by extremely long diagnostic delays. Citing the literature, Navrazhina said the average delay is 7 years for HS versus 1 year for psoriasis. Patients often cycle through 3 or 4 providers before the diagnosis is made, she said.

Awakening first-line clinicians to the signs and symptoms of HS, whether in the emergency room or primary care, is a critical message because of the incrementally difficult task to control disease once fistulae have formed. 

Krueger made the same appeal. For the neutrophilic inflammation that characterizes nodules, targeted therapies are often effective, but he agreed that available therapies are generally far less so once tunnels form.

 

Role Seen for Bacteria in HS Pathogenesis

One reason might be an interaction between anaerobic bacteria and the keratinocytes that form the tunnel walls, according to Krueger. Although HS is not typically considered an infectious disease, he reported that the interaction of these bacteria with keratinocytes is associated with expression of approximately 1000 inflammatory gene products. The process of tunnel formation is traced to how factors recruited by upregulated inflammation, such as chemokines, coordinate.

He described recent work pursing novel strategies such as highly targeted antibiotics or inhibitors of complement factor C5a, which has been proposed as a biomarker for HS, to intervene in preventing or reversing HS tunnels. 

While this work progresses, one of the most Important unmet needs in HS is an accepted measure of clinically meaningful improvement in advanced disease, particularly the impact of therapy on HS tunnels, according to Krueger. 

“There is no measure of tunnel activity that the FDA accepts in evaluating drugs,” he noted, which will be essential for approving therapies that offer this benefit. 

A phase 3 trials program for one of the promising drugs, sonelokimab, was announced early in 2024. A nanobody that targets IL-17A/A, IL-17A/F, and IL-17F/F, the small size of this molecule permits exceptional tissue penetration while the broad anti-IL-17 activity has a high degree of theoretical potential in late-stage HS, according to Krueger. 

There are numerous pieces of the HS puzzle that are still missing, but both Krueger and Navrazhina are enthusiastic about new targets and opportunities for disease control that are stemming from a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. Not least, both indicated that testing for inflammatory phenotypes will allow for individualized therapeutic choices with a maximum likelihood of response, particularly if earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment. 

“Due to the heterogeneity of HS, it is hard to know who will respond to which treatment or which treatment should be started first,” Navrazhina said. She thinks that early measures of the inflammatory profile in nodules or even non-lesional skin might provide that guidance. 

Both Krueger and Navrazhina reported no financial relationships relevant to this work. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK, NY — Work over the past several years has reframed hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as a large-field inflammatory process, a recharacterization that has immediate relevance to treatment strategies and goals, according to two investigators intimately involved in much of the recent progress.

“Success is being achieved by targeting multiple inflammatory axes in HS, and therapeutics are evolving rapidly,” reported James G. Krueger, MD, PhD, head of the Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

The activity of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies — bimekizumab just joined adalimumab and secukinumab as a third approved biologic for HS — is not news, but the degree to which inflammation is upregulated systemically, not just at areas of skin involvement, has changed the conceptualization of HS.

HS Is a Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Relative to psoriasis, for which there are many parallels, “HS is hugely more inflammatory in the systemic circulation,” Krueger said at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024. Yet, HS is also more complex involving additional pathways that appear to include dysbiosis. The concept of follicular occlusion, once a common explanation for HS, has been left far behind.

“Unlike psoriasis, which we can treat really well by inhibiting a single pathway target, HS is just not that simple,” Krueger said. Although largely an inflammatory process, the cascade of inflammatory factors for specific manifestations, such as tunnels, means that optimal therapy in one case might have little benefit in another.

The relatively new evidence that HS activity is not confined to lesional skin might be the most important recent step toward new strategies to target disease. These studies were performed by Kristina Navrazhina, MD, PhD, now a resident in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She received her PhD while studying HS activity in non-lesional skin. Her work has led her to conclude that the best chance for better outcomes in HS is early diagnosis and treatment. Although this is generally true of any pathology, the changes in the HS phenotype once fistulae form includes a poor response to conventional therapies. 

In fact, based on her work in evaluating HS activity in non-lesional skin, Navrazhina has shown that “many patients with modest lesions already have advanced disease.” Consistent with the premise that HS is a deeply systemic inflammatory process, nodules, considered an early manifestation, turn out to be “the tip of the iceberg.”

 

Non-Lesional HS Skin Is Inflamed

When she has employed RNA sequencing based on tape strip sampling from completely normal skin away from nodules, interleukin (IL)-17 and a broad array of other inflammatory markers were found to be upregulated. When she performed ultrasound to look for disease activity under the normal skin, she has often found tunnels already formed. Doppler ultrasound showed some of these tunnels were actively draining.

This might provide a partial explanation for why therapies are not always effective even when clinical signs of disease are modest. 

“Are we missing the opportunity for intervening?” Navrazhina asked, noting that early intervention has been limited traditionally by extremely long diagnostic delays. Citing the literature, Navrazhina said the average delay is 7 years for HS versus 1 year for psoriasis. Patients often cycle through 3 or 4 providers before the diagnosis is made, she said.

Awakening first-line clinicians to the signs and symptoms of HS, whether in the emergency room or primary care, is a critical message because of the incrementally difficult task to control disease once fistulae have formed. 

Krueger made the same appeal. For the neutrophilic inflammation that characterizes nodules, targeted therapies are often effective, but he agreed that available therapies are generally far less so once tunnels form.

 

Role Seen for Bacteria in HS Pathogenesis

One reason might be an interaction between anaerobic bacteria and the keratinocytes that form the tunnel walls, according to Krueger. Although HS is not typically considered an infectious disease, he reported that the interaction of these bacteria with keratinocytes is associated with expression of approximately 1000 inflammatory gene products. The process of tunnel formation is traced to how factors recruited by upregulated inflammation, such as chemokines, coordinate.

He described recent work pursing novel strategies such as highly targeted antibiotics or inhibitors of complement factor C5a, which has been proposed as a biomarker for HS, to intervene in preventing or reversing HS tunnels. 

While this work progresses, one of the most Important unmet needs in HS is an accepted measure of clinically meaningful improvement in advanced disease, particularly the impact of therapy on HS tunnels, according to Krueger. 

“There is no measure of tunnel activity that the FDA accepts in evaluating drugs,” he noted, which will be essential for approving therapies that offer this benefit. 

A phase 3 trials program for one of the promising drugs, sonelokimab, was announced early in 2024. A nanobody that targets IL-17A/A, IL-17A/F, and IL-17F/F, the small size of this molecule permits exceptional tissue penetration while the broad anti-IL-17 activity has a high degree of theoretical potential in late-stage HS, according to Krueger. 

There are numerous pieces of the HS puzzle that are still missing, but both Krueger and Navrazhina are enthusiastic about new targets and opportunities for disease control that are stemming from a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. Not least, both indicated that testing for inflammatory phenotypes will allow for individualized therapeutic choices with a maximum likelihood of response, particularly if earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment. 

“Due to the heterogeneity of HS, it is hard to know who will respond to which treatment or which treatment should be started first,” Navrazhina said. She thinks that early measures of the inflammatory profile in nodules or even non-lesional skin might provide that guidance. 

Both Krueger and Navrazhina reported no financial relationships relevant to this work. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK, NY — Work over the past several years has reframed hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as a large-field inflammatory process, a recharacterization that has immediate relevance to treatment strategies and goals, according to two investigators intimately involved in much of the recent progress.

“Success is being achieved by targeting multiple inflammatory axes in HS, and therapeutics are evolving rapidly,” reported James G. Krueger, MD, PhD, head of the Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

The activity of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies — bimekizumab just joined adalimumab and secukinumab as a third approved biologic for HS — is not news, but the degree to which inflammation is upregulated systemically, not just at areas of skin involvement, has changed the conceptualization of HS.

HS Is a Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Relative to psoriasis, for which there are many parallels, “HS is hugely more inflammatory in the systemic circulation,” Krueger said at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024. Yet, HS is also more complex involving additional pathways that appear to include dysbiosis. The concept of follicular occlusion, once a common explanation for HS, has been left far behind.

“Unlike psoriasis, which we can treat really well by inhibiting a single pathway target, HS is just not that simple,” Krueger said. Although largely an inflammatory process, the cascade of inflammatory factors for specific manifestations, such as tunnels, means that optimal therapy in one case might have little benefit in another.

The relatively new evidence that HS activity is not confined to lesional skin might be the most important recent step toward new strategies to target disease. These studies were performed by Kristina Navrazhina, MD, PhD, now a resident in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She received her PhD while studying HS activity in non-lesional skin. Her work has led her to conclude that the best chance for better outcomes in HS is early diagnosis and treatment. Although this is generally true of any pathology, the changes in the HS phenotype once fistulae form includes a poor response to conventional therapies. 

In fact, based on her work in evaluating HS activity in non-lesional skin, Navrazhina has shown that “many patients with modest lesions already have advanced disease.” Consistent with the premise that HS is a deeply systemic inflammatory process, nodules, considered an early manifestation, turn out to be “the tip of the iceberg.”

 

Non-Lesional HS Skin Is Inflamed

When she has employed RNA sequencing based on tape strip sampling from completely normal skin away from nodules, interleukin (IL)-17 and a broad array of other inflammatory markers were found to be upregulated. When she performed ultrasound to look for disease activity under the normal skin, she has often found tunnels already formed. Doppler ultrasound showed some of these tunnels were actively draining.

This might provide a partial explanation for why therapies are not always effective even when clinical signs of disease are modest. 

“Are we missing the opportunity for intervening?” Navrazhina asked, noting that early intervention has been limited traditionally by extremely long diagnostic delays. Citing the literature, Navrazhina said the average delay is 7 years for HS versus 1 year for psoriasis. Patients often cycle through 3 or 4 providers before the diagnosis is made, she said.

Awakening first-line clinicians to the signs and symptoms of HS, whether in the emergency room or primary care, is a critical message because of the incrementally difficult task to control disease once fistulae have formed. 

Krueger made the same appeal. For the neutrophilic inflammation that characterizes nodules, targeted therapies are often effective, but he agreed that available therapies are generally far less so once tunnels form.

 

Role Seen for Bacteria in HS Pathogenesis

One reason might be an interaction between anaerobic bacteria and the keratinocytes that form the tunnel walls, according to Krueger. Although HS is not typically considered an infectious disease, he reported that the interaction of these bacteria with keratinocytes is associated with expression of approximately 1000 inflammatory gene products. The process of tunnel formation is traced to how factors recruited by upregulated inflammation, such as chemokines, coordinate.

He described recent work pursing novel strategies such as highly targeted antibiotics or inhibitors of complement factor C5a, which has been proposed as a biomarker for HS, to intervene in preventing or reversing HS tunnels. 

While this work progresses, one of the most Important unmet needs in HS is an accepted measure of clinically meaningful improvement in advanced disease, particularly the impact of therapy on HS tunnels, according to Krueger. 

“There is no measure of tunnel activity that the FDA accepts in evaluating drugs,” he noted, which will be essential for approving therapies that offer this benefit. 

A phase 3 trials program for one of the promising drugs, sonelokimab, was announced early in 2024. A nanobody that targets IL-17A/A, IL-17A/F, and IL-17F/F, the small size of this molecule permits exceptional tissue penetration while the broad anti-IL-17 activity has a high degree of theoretical potential in late-stage HS, according to Krueger. 

There are numerous pieces of the HS puzzle that are still missing, but both Krueger and Navrazhina are enthusiastic about new targets and opportunities for disease control that are stemming from a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. Not least, both indicated that testing for inflammatory phenotypes will allow for individualized therapeutic choices with a maximum likelihood of response, particularly if earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment. 

“Due to the heterogeneity of HS, it is hard to know who will respond to which treatment or which treatment should be started first,” Navrazhina said. She thinks that early measures of the inflammatory profile in nodules or even non-lesional skin might provide that guidance. 

Both Krueger and Navrazhina reported no financial relationships relevant to this work. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO — Final results of the phase 3 Andromeda study confirmed that adding daratumumab (DARA) — a human CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody — to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) improves outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Adding DARA to VCd (D-VCd; Darzalex Faspro; Janssen Biotech) provided deeper and more rapid hematologic response and clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and major organ deterioration progression-free survival (MOD-PFS), combined with 40.7% cardiac complete response (CR), first author Efstathios Kastritis, MD, said during presentation of an oral abstract at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“The Andromeda study is the first comparing two contemporary regimens that shows a significant survival improvement for patients with AL amyloidosis,” said Kastritis, an associate professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece. “These findings reaffirm frontline D-VCd as the standard of care in this difficult-to-treat disease.”

The regimen was approved for this indication in 2021 based on prior earlier findings from the Andromeda trial. The current results are from a preplanned analysis for MOD-PFS and OS.

At a median follow-up of 61.4 months, the overall hematologic CR rates were 59.5% and 19.2% among 388 patients randomized to receive D-VCd or VCd, respectively (odds ratio, 6.03), which showed continued improvement with additional DARA vs the 53.3% and 18.1% rates observed at the primary analysis, Kastritis reported.

Time to hematologic CR was 67.5 days and 85.0 days in the treatment groups, respectively, and median duration of hematologic CR was not reached in either group.

A significant 56% improvement was also observed in MOD-PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44). Median MOD-PFS was not reached in the D-VCd group and was 30.3 months in the VCd group.

A significant 38% improvement was observed in OS (HR, 0.62), 5-year OS was 76.1% vs 64.7% in the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, he said.

“[The OS] benefit occurred even though more than 70% of the patients in the VCd arm who received a subsequent therapy were treated with a DARA-based regimen,” he stressed. “This further emphasizes the importance of using DSTS in the frontline setting.”

Trial participants had newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, one or more involved organs, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. They were randomized 1:1 to the two treatment groups. All patients received 1.3 mg/m2 of bortezomib by weekly injection, 300 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide either by weekly oral or intravenous administration, and 20-40 mg of dexamethasone by weekly oral or intravenous administration for six 28-day cycles.

Those in the D-VCd group also received 1800 mg of DARA coformulated with rHuPH20 as a weekly injection in cycles 1-2, as a biweekly injection in cycles 3-6, and by injection every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 24 28-day cycles.

The median duration of treatment was 21.3 months for D-VCd and 5.3 months for VCd, and of 122 patients who received subsequent therapy, 82 (67%) received subsequent DARA.

Patients who achieved hematologic CR had better MOD-PFS and OS (HR, 0.30 and 0.41, respectively), regardless of the treatment received, he noted, adding that “this further supports that complete hematologic response is a valid early endpoint for the evaluation of anti-monoclonal therapies in AL amyloidosis.”

“I think this is very important for the further development of new treatments in this disease,” he said.

Of note, cardiac and renal response rates in the D-VCd group were about two to three times greater than those in the VCd group at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, Kastritis said.

Among 235 patients with an evaluable cardiac response, 113 achieved a very good partial response or better, including 76 of 118 (64.4%) in the D-VCd group and 37 of 117 (31.6%) in the VCd group. Of these, 48 (40.7%) and 16 (13.7%) achieved a cardiac CR.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients in the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, were lymphopenia (13% and 10%), pneumonia (8% and 4%), hypokalemia (2% and 5%), and peripheral edema (3% and 6%), he noted, adding that systemic administration-related reactions occurred in 14 (7%) of patients receiving D-VCd; all were grade 1 or 2 and most (86%) occurred after the first injection. TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 5% and 4% of patients in the groups, respectively.

No new safety signals were observed during the extended follow-up, he said.

Kastritis reported relationships with Pfizer, Genesis Pharma, Sanofi, AbbVie, GSK, Prothena, Janssen, and Amgen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Final results of the phase 3 Andromeda study confirmed that adding daratumumab (DARA) — a human CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody — to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) improves outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Adding DARA to VCd (D-VCd; Darzalex Faspro; Janssen Biotech) provided deeper and more rapid hematologic response and clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and major organ deterioration progression-free survival (MOD-PFS), combined with 40.7% cardiac complete response (CR), first author Efstathios Kastritis, MD, said during presentation of an oral abstract at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“The Andromeda study is the first comparing two contemporary regimens that shows a significant survival improvement for patients with AL amyloidosis,” said Kastritis, an associate professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece. “These findings reaffirm frontline D-VCd as the standard of care in this difficult-to-treat disease.”

The regimen was approved for this indication in 2021 based on prior earlier findings from the Andromeda trial. The current results are from a preplanned analysis for MOD-PFS and OS.

At a median follow-up of 61.4 months, the overall hematologic CR rates were 59.5% and 19.2% among 388 patients randomized to receive D-VCd or VCd, respectively (odds ratio, 6.03), which showed continued improvement with additional DARA vs the 53.3% and 18.1% rates observed at the primary analysis, Kastritis reported.

Time to hematologic CR was 67.5 days and 85.0 days in the treatment groups, respectively, and median duration of hematologic CR was not reached in either group.

A significant 56% improvement was also observed in MOD-PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44). Median MOD-PFS was not reached in the D-VCd group and was 30.3 months in the VCd group.

A significant 38% improvement was observed in OS (HR, 0.62), 5-year OS was 76.1% vs 64.7% in the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, he said.

“[The OS] benefit occurred even though more than 70% of the patients in the VCd arm who received a subsequent therapy were treated with a DARA-based regimen,” he stressed. “This further emphasizes the importance of using DSTS in the frontline setting.”

Trial participants had newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, one or more involved organs, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. They were randomized 1:1 to the two treatment groups. All patients received 1.3 mg/m2 of bortezomib by weekly injection, 300 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide either by weekly oral or intravenous administration, and 20-40 mg of dexamethasone by weekly oral or intravenous administration for six 28-day cycles.

Those in the D-VCd group also received 1800 mg of DARA coformulated with rHuPH20 as a weekly injection in cycles 1-2, as a biweekly injection in cycles 3-6, and by injection every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 24 28-day cycles.

The median duration of treatment was 21.3 months for D-VCd and 5.3 months for VCd, and of 122 patients who received subsequent therapy, 82 (67%) received subsequent DARA.

Patients who achieved hematologic CR had better MOD-PFS and OS (HR, 0.30 and 0.41, respectively), regardless of the treatment received, he noted, adding that “this further supports that complete hematologic response is a valid early endpoint for the evaluation of anti-monoclonal therapies in AL amyloidosis.”

“I think this is very important for the further development of new treatments in this disease,” he said.

Of note, cardiac and renal response rates in the D-VCd group were about two to three times greater than those in the VCd group at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, Kastritis said.

Among 235 patients with an evaluable cardiac response, 113 achieved a very good partial response or better, including 76 of 118 (64.4%) in the D-VCd group and 37 of 117 (31.6%) in the VCd group. Of these, 48 (40.7%) and 16 (13.7%) achieved a cardiac CR.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients in the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, were lymphopenia (13% and 10%), pneumonia (8% and 4%), hypokalemia (2% and 5%), and peripheral edema (3% and 6%), he noted, adding that systemic administration-related reactions occurred in 14 (7%) of patients receiving D-VCd; all were grade 1 or 2 and most (86%) occurred after the first injection. TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 5% and 4% of patients in the groups, respectively.

No new safety signals were observed during the extended follow-up, he said.

Kastritis reported relationships with Pfizer, Genesis Pharma, Sanofi, AbbVie, GSK, Prothena, Janssen, and Amgen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Final results of the phase 3 Andromeda study confirmed that adding daratumumab (DARA) — a human CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody — to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) improves outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Adding DARA to VCd (D-VCd; Darzalex Faspro; Janssen Biotech) provided deeper and more rapid hematologic response and clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and major organ deterioration progression-free survival (MOD-PFS), combined with 40.7% cardiac complete response (CR), first author Efstathios Kastritis, MD, said during presentation of an oral abstract at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“The Andromeda study is the first comparing two contemporary regimens that shows a significant survival improvement for patients with AL amyloidosis,” said Kastritis, an associate professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece. “These findings reaffirm frontline D-VCd as the standard of care in this difficult-to-treat disease.”

The regimen was approved for this indication in 2021 based on prior earlier findings from the Andromeda trial. The current results are from a preplanned analysis for MOD-PFS and OS.

At a median follow-up of 61.4 months, the overall hematologic CR rates were 59.5% and 19.2% among 388 patients randomized to receive D-VCd or VCd, respectively (odds ratio, 6.03), which showed continued improvement with additional DARA vs the 53.3% and 18.1% rates observed at the primary analysis, Kastritis reported.

Time to hematologic CR was 67.5 days and 85.0 days in the treatment groups, respectively, and median duration of hematologic CR was not reached in either group.

A significant 56% improvement was also observed in MOD-PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44). Median MOD-PFS was not reached in the D-VCd group and was 30.3 months in the VCd group.

A significant 38% improvement was observed in OS (HR, 0.62), 5-year OS was 76.1% vs 64.7% in the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, he said.

“[The OS] benefit occurred even though more than 70% of the patients in the VCd arm who received a subsequent therapy were treated with a DARA-based regimen,” he stressed. “This further emphasizes the importance of using DSTS in the frontline setting.”

Trial participants had newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, one or more involved organs, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. They were randomized 1:1 to the two treatment groups. All patients received 1.3 mg/m2 of bortezomib by weekly injection, 300 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide either by weekly oral or intravenous administration, and 20-40 mg of dexamethasone by weekly oral or intravenous administration for six 28-day cycles.

Those in the D-VCd group also received 1800 mg of DARA coformulated with rHuPH20 as a weekly injection in cycles 1-2, as a biweekly injection in cycles 3-6, and by injection every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 24 28-day cycles.

The median duration of treatment was 21.3 months for D-VCd and 5.3 months for VCd, and of 122 patients who received subsequent therapy, 82 (67%) received subsequent DARA.

Patients who achieved hematologic CR had better MOD-PFS and OS (HR, 0.30 and 0.41, respectively), regardless of the treatment received, he noted, adding that “this further supports that complete hematologic response is a valid early endpoint for the evaluation of anti-monoclonal therapies in AL amyloidosis.”

“I think this is very important for the further development of new treatments in this disease,” he said.

Of note, cardiac and renal response rates in the D-VCd group were about two to three times greater than those in the VCd group at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, Kastritis said.

Among 235 patients with an evaluable cardiac response, 113 achieved a very good partial response or better, including 76 of 118 (64.4%) in the D-VCd group and 37 of 117 (31.6%) in the VCd group. Of these, 48 (40.7%) and 16 (13.7%) achieved a cardiac CR.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in at least 5% of patients in the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, were lymphopenia (13% and 10%), pneumonia (8% and 4%), hypokalemia (2% and 5%), and peripheral edema (3% and 6%), he noted, adding that systemic administration-related reactions occurred in 14 (7%) of patients receiving D-VCd; all were grade 1 or 2 and most (86%) occurred after the first injection. TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 5% and 4% of patients in the groups, respectively.

No new safety signals were observed during the extended follow-up, he said.

Kastritis reported relationships with Pfizer, Genesis Pharma, Sanofi, AbbVie, GSK, Prothena, Janssen, and Amgen.

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