Conference Coverage

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — A 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser, approved 2 years ago by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has demonstrated a high degree of improvement for facial photoaging and rhytides along with relatively high rates of patient satisfaction — while causing less discomfort and downtime compared with conventional fractional lasers, a small single-center study showed.

The study enrolled 15 patients who had three treatment sessions with the 2910-nm laser. “It’s highly customizable,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “It has a really fast time in healing compared to traditional abatable lasers; the healing time is 5-7 days vs several weeks.” Dr. Murray presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS).
 

The Technology Behind the Laser

The 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser is a mid-infrared ablative fractional device that operates at peak water absorption. It’s designed to cause minimal residual thermal damage, resulting in less discomfort, shorter downtime, and potentially fewer side effects than conventional ablative lasers, Dr. Murray said.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

Because of the way the pulses are delivered, “it’s far less painful than traditional fractional ablative lasers, so you can use mainly topical numbing; you don’t need nerve blocks, you don’t have to infiltrate lidocaine, you don’t have to put the patient under anesthesia,” she said.

“Because of the wavelength, how pulses are delivered and how customizable the settings are, it’s safer to use in darker skin types,” and the density, depth, and the amount of coagulation applied into the skin are customizable, Dr. Murray added. 

The laser also delivers pulses in a different way than the conventional 2940-nm erbium and CO₂ lasers, she explained. “Traditional lasers do it all in one pulse. This laser uses micropulses with relaxation time in between pulses, so the body interprets it as less painful and allows pressure and steam to escape out of the channel, which results in faster healing.”

[embed:render:related:node:265602]

The study patients had topical anesthetic cream applied to their faces 45-60 minutes before the procedure. Multiple passes were made using both superficial and deep laser modes. The average patient age was 65.7 years, and Fitzpatrick skin types included I (n = 3), II (n = 3), III (n = 7), and IV (n = 2). On a scale of 0-10, the average level of discomfort was 4.9, and the average patient satisfaction after three treatments was 4.8, Dr. Murray said.

For cosmetic improvement, the study used the 5-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Blinded reviewers evaluated digital images and determined an average GAIS score of 3.2 for overall appearance, 2.9 for wrinkles, 3.6 for pigment, 3.1 for skin texture, and 2.6 for skin laxity. 

When the patients themselves reviewed the digital images, the average GAIS score was 3.8 for overall appearance. 

Side effects, said Dr. Murray, were transient, with edema and soft-tissue crusting lasting 3-5 days and erythema resolving in 1-2 weeks on average. One case of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did arise, which was linked to allergic contact dermatitis from the healing ointment. That patient stayed in the study and had complete resolution of the PIH.

Study Stands Out

A number of studies of the 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser have emerged over the past half year, Ritu Swali, MD, who was an American Society of Dermatologic Surgery fellow at a practice in Houston, said in an interview at the meeting. But this one stands out because of the evidence surrounding its use.

Most people are using this laser for facial resurfacing, “and we want to know that we have a technology ... with shorter downtime and easier wound care and just more comfort,” she said.

Swali_Ritu_web.jpg

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

BALTIMORE — A 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser, approved 2 years ago by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has demonstrated a high degree of improvement for facial photoaging and rhytides along with relatively high rates of patient satisfaction — while causing less discomfort and downtime compared with conventional fractional lasers, a small single-center study showed.

The study enrolled 15 patients who had three treatment sessions with the 2910-nm laser. “It’s highly customizable,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “It has a really fast time in healing compared to traditional abatable lasers; the healing time is 5-7 days vs several weeks.” Dr. Murray presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS).
 

The Technology Behind the Laser

The 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser is a mid-infrared ablative fractional device that operates at peak water absorption. It’s designed to cause minimal residual thermal damage, resulting in less discomfort, shorter downtime, and potentially fewer side effects than conventional ablative lasers, Dr. Murray said.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

Because of the way the pulses are delivered, “it’s far less painful than traditional fractional ablative lasers, so you can use mainly topical numbing; you don’t need nerve blocks, you don’t have to infiltrate lidocaine, you don’t have to put the patient under anesthesia,” she said.

“Because of the wavelength, how pulses are delivered and how customizable the settings are, it’s safer to use in darker skin types,” and the density, depth, and the amount of coagulation applied into the skin are customizable, Dr. Murray added. 

The laser also delivers pulses in a different way than the conventional 2940-nm erbium and CO₂ lasers, she explained. “Traditional lasers do it all in one pulse. This laser uses micropulses with relaxation time in between pulses, so the body interprets it as less painful and allows pressure and steam to escape out of the channel, which results in faster healing.”

[embed:render:related:node:265602]

The study patients had topical anesthetic cream applied to their faces 45-60 minutes before the procedure. Multiple passes were made using both superficial and deep laser modes. The average patient age was 65.7 years, and Fitzpatrick skin types included I (n = 3), II (n = 3), III (n = 7), and IV (n = 2). On a scale of 0-10, the average level of discomfort was 4.9, and the average patient satisfaction after three treatments was 4.8, Dr. Murray said.

For cosmetic improvement, the study used the 5-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Blinded reviewers evaluated digital images and determined an average GAIS score of 3.2 for overall appearance, 2.9 for wrinkles, 3.6 for pigment, 3.1 for skin texture, and 2.6 for skin laxity. 

When the patients themselves reviewed the digital images, the average GAIS score was 3.8 for overall appearance. 

Side effects, said Dr. Murray, were transient, with edema and soft-tissue crusting lasting 3-5 days and erythema resolving in 1-2 weeks on average. One case of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did arise, which was linked to allergic contact dermatitis from the healing ointment. That patient stayed in the study and had complete resolution of the PIH.

Study Stands Out

A number of studies of the 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser have emerged over the past half year, Ritu Swali, MD, who was an American Society of Dermatologic Surgery fellow at a practice in Houston, said in an interview at the meeting. But this one stands out because of the evidence surrounding its use.

Most people are using this laser for facial resurfacing, “and we want to know that we have a technology ... with shorter downtime and easier wound care and just more comfort,” she said.

Swali_Ritu_web.jpg

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

BALTIMORE — A 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser, approved 2 years ago by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has demonstrated a high degree of improvement for facial photoaging and rhytides along with relatively high rates of patient satisfaction — while causing less discomfort and downtime compared with conventional fractional lasers, a small single-center study showed.

The study enrolled 15 patients who had three treatment sessions with the 2910-nm laser. “It’s highly customizable,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “It has a really fast time in healing compared to traditional abatable lasers; the healing time is 5-7 days vs several weeks.” Dr. Murray presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS).
 

The Technology Behind the Laser

The 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser is a mid-infrared ablative fractional device that operates at peak water absorption. It’s designed to cause minimal residual thermal damage, resulting in less discomfort, shorter downtime, and potentially fewer side effects than conventional ablative lasers, Dr. Murray said.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

Because of the way the pulses are delivered, “it’s far less painful than traditional fractional ablative lasers, so you can use mainly topical numbing; you don’t need nerve blocks, you don’t have to infiltrate lidocaine, you don’t have to put the patient under anesthesia,” she said.

“Because of the wavelength, how pulses are delivered and how customizable the settings are, it’s safer to use in darker skin types,” and the density, depth, and the amount of coagulation applied into the skin are customizable, Dr. Murray added. 

The laser also delivers pulses in a different way than the conventional 2940-nm erbium and CO₂ lasers, she explained. “Traditional lasers do it all in one pulse. This laser uses micropulses with relaxation time in between pulses, so the body interprets it as less painful and allows pressure and steam to escape out of the channel, which results in faster healing.”

[embed:render:related:node:265602]

The study patients had topical anesthetic cream applied to their faces 45-60 minutes before the procedure. Multiple passes were made using both superficial and deep laser modes. The average patient age was 65.7 years, and Fitzpatrick skin types included I (n = 3), II (n = 3), III (n = 7), and IV (n = 2). On a scale of 0-10, the average level of discomfort was 4.9, and the average patient satisfaction after three treatments was 4.8, Dr. Murray said.

For cosmetic improvement, the study used the 5-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Blinded reviewers evaluated digital images and determined an average GAIS score of 3.2 for overall appearance, 2.9 for wrinkles, 3.6 for pigment, 3.1 for skin texture, and 2.6 for skin laxity. 

When the patients themselves reviewed the digital images, the average GAIS score was 3.8 for overall appearance. 

Side effects, said Dr. Murray, were transient, with edema and soft-tissue crusting lasting 3-5 days and erythema resolving in 1-2 weeks on average. One case of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did arise, which was linked to allergic contact dermatitis from the healing ointment. That patient stayed in the study and had complete resolution of the PIH.

Study Stands Out

A number of studies of the 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser have emerged over the past half year, Ritu Swali, MD, who was an American Society of Dermatologic Surgery fellow at a practice in Houston, said in an interview at the meeting. But this one stands out because of the evidence surrounding its use.

Most people are using this laser for facial resurfacing, “and we want to know that we have a technology ... with shorter downtime and easier wound care and just more comfort,” she said.

Swali_Ritu_web.jpg

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

BALTIMORE — A relatively new registry of complications from dermatologic surgery has posted its first results, showing that among laser and energy device treatments, the most common adverse events (AEs) were blistering, hypopigmentation, scars, and burns. But the process of reporting AEs to the registry needs to be made easier to attract more cases and provide a more complete picture of complications after dermatologic procedures, a researcher and observer said.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting Registry (CAPER) was established in 2021 to track AEs from dermatologic procedures. Since then, it has logged a total of 81 cases and 147 AEs from 27 unique procedures, Eric Koza, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Koza_Eric_Illinois_web.jpg

“The takeaways from this project is that 20 laser and energy device treatments have been reported to the registry, half of which were nonablative laser treatments,” Dr. Koza said in presenting the results. “Of the adverse events reported, nonphysicians and non-dermatologic physicians were more likely to be associated with severe or persistent adverse events.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association and the Northwestern University Department of Dermatology launched CAPER. Previously, Dr. Koza said, AEs were typically reported only through the Food and Drug Administration’s AE reporting system. He noted that CAPER is the only voluntary national reporting registry for AEs from dermatologic procedures.

What the Registry Shows So Far

The registry matched 72 of the 81 cases with type of provider, with dermatologist-conducted procedures (51, 70.8%) comprising the majority, followed by nonphysician-conducted procedures (14, 19.4%) and nondermatologist physician–conducted procedures (7, 9.7%).

Of the 81 total cases, the following reports were related to laser and energy device treatments: 12 (14.3%) from nonablative laser treatments, five (6%) from light treatments, and three (3.6%) from ablative laser treatments, Dr. Koza said.

Among nonablative laser treatments, the most common AE was blistering (six reports, 50%). Scar, pain, and hypopigmentation accounted for two cases each (16.67%). Dermatologists performed seven of these cases (58.3%); nonphysicians, four (33.3%); and a non-dermatologist physician, one (8.3%).

For intense pulsed-light treatments, burns were the most common AEs (three reports, 60%), with swelling and inflammation each accounting for one case (20%). Three of these cases (75%) were confirmed to have been performed by nonphysicians.

The ablative laser treatment AEs included one case each of hypopigmentation, scar, and erythema. Two of the three cases were confirmed to have been performed by dermatologists.

Dr. Koza acknowledged the low number of cases is a limitation of this analysis of registry reports. A future goal for CAPER is to publicize it more, he said. “The registry is only 3 years old,” he told this news organization. “Hopefully, we can get more data as time goes on. We’ve been getting more and more each year.” CAPER adapted data entry forms used in other registries.

Submitting a case to the registry takes about 15 minutes of the provider’s time, Dr. Koza said. “We can streamline that to make it easier for people to submit their adverse events,” he said in an interview.

Only registry staff have access to the reports, and when reported, the data “is de-identified and any identifying information pertaining to the patient or reporter is removed,” according to a statement on the CAPER website.
 

‘Needs a Little Help’

Jennifer Lin, MD, a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was at the meeting, commented on the onerous reporting process and the “low” enrollment. “It’s such an important initiative and with everyone over-logging e-mails, a 15-minute entry just is not going to cut it,” she told this news organization.

For providers, reporting AEs is stressful, she said. “As it is, it’s hard to voluntarily submit an adverse event,” Dr. Lin continued. “There’s a feeling of shame. Hospitals require it in order to monitor adverse events, but there’s no monitoring when you’re out in your own private practice.”

“The idea is excellent, but I think to facilitate better enrollment, the word has to get out at all these meetings” and make it easier to submit cases, Dr. Lin added. “It’s a good idea, but it needs a little help.”

Information on submitting AE reports to CAPER is available on the CAPER website.

Dr. Koza and Dr. Lin had no relevant relationships to disclose.

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

BALTIMORE — A relatively new registry of complications from dermatologic surgery has posted its first results, showing that among laser and energy device treatments, the most common adverse events (AEs) were blistering, hypopigmentation, scars, and burns. But the process of reporting AEs to the registry needs to be made easier to attract more cases and provide a more complete picture of complications after dermatologic procedures, a researcher and observer said.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting Registry (CAPER) was established in 2021 to track AEs from dermatologic procedures. Since then, it has logged a total of 81 cases and 147 AEs from 27 unique procedures, Eric Koza, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Koza_Eric_Illinois_web.jpg

“The takeaways from this project is that 20 laser and energy device treatments have been reported to the registry, half of which were nonablative laser treatments,” Dr. Koza said in presenting the results. “Of the adverse events reported, nonphysicians and non-dermatologic physicians were more likely to be associated with severe or persistent adverse events.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association and the Northwestern University Department of Dermatology launched CAPER. Previously, Dr. Koza said, AEs were typically reported only through the Food and Drug Administration’s AE reporting system. He noted that CAPER is the only voluntary national reporting registry for AEs from dermatologic procedures.

What the Registry Shows So Far

The registry matched 72 of the 81 cases with type of provider, with dermatologist-conducted procedures (51, 70.8%) comprising the majority, followed by nonphysician-conducted procedures (14, 19.4%) and nondermatologist physician–conducted procedures (7, 9.7%).

Of the 81 total cases, the following reports were related to laser and energy device treatments: 12 (14.3%) from nonablative laser treatments, five (6%) from light treatments, and three (3.6%) from ablative laser treatments, Dr. Koza said.

Among nonablative laser treatments, the most common AE was blistering (six reports, 50%). Scar, pain, and hypopigmentation accounted for two cases each (16.67%). Dermatologists performed seven of these cases (58.3%); nonphysicians, four (33.3%); and a non-dermatologist physician, one (8.3%).

For intense pulsed-light treatments, burns were the most common AEs (three reports, 60%), with swelling and inflammation each accounting for one case (20%). Three of these cases (75%) were confirmed to have been performed by nonphysicians.

The ablative laser treatment AEs included one case each of hypopigmentation, scar, and erythema. Two of the three cases were confirmed to have been performed by dermatologists.

Dr. Koza acknowledged the low number of cases is a limitation of this analysis of registry reports. A future goal for CAPER is to publicize it more, he said. “The registry is only 3 years old,” he told this news organization. “Hopefully, we can get more data as time goes on. We’ve been getting more and more each year.” CAPER adapted data entry forms used in other registries.

Submitting a case to the registry takes about 15 minutes of the provider’s time, Dr. Koza said. “We can streamline that to make it easier for people to submit their adverse events,” he said in an interview.

Only registry staff have access to the reports, and when reported, the data “is de-identified and any identifying information pertaining to the patient or reporter is removed,” according to a statement on the CAPER website.
 

‘Needs a Little Help’

Jennifer Lin, MD, a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was at the meeting, commented on the onerous reporting process and the “low” enrollment. “It’s such an important initiative and with everyone over-logging e-mails, a 15-minute entry just is not going to cut it,” she told this news organization.

For providers, reporting AEs is stressful, she said. “As it is, it’s hard to voluntarily submit an adverse event,” Dr. Lin continued. “There’s a feeling of shame. Hospitals require it in order to monitor adverse events, but there’s no monitoring when you’re out in your own private practice.”

“The idea is excellent, but I think to facilitate better enrollment, the word has to get out at all these meetings” and make it easier to submit cases, Dr. Lin added. “It’s a good idea, but it needs a little help.”

Information on submitting AE reports to CAPER is available on the CAPER website.

Dr. Koza and Dr. Lin had no relevant relationships to disclose.

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

BALTIMORE — A relatively new registry of complications from dermatologic surgery has posted its first results, showing that among laser and energy device treatments, the most common adverse events (AEs) were blistering, hypopigmentation, scars, and burns. But the process of reporting AEs to the registry needs to be made easier to attract more cases and provide a more complete picture of complications after dermatologic procedures, a researcher and observer said.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting Registry (CAPER) was established in 2021 to track AEs from dermatologic procedures. Since then, it has logged a total of 81 cases and 147 AEs from 27 unique procedures, Eric Koza, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Koza_Eric_Illinois_web.jpg

“The takeaways from this project is that 20 laser and energy device treatments have been reported to the registry, half of which were nonablative laser treatments,” Dr. Koza said in presenting the results. “Of the adverse events reported, nonphysicians and non-dermatologic physicians were more likely to be associated with severe or persistent adverse events.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association and the Northwestern University Department of Dermatology launched CAPER. Previously, Dr. Koza said, AEs were typically reported only through the Food and Drug Administration’s AE reporting system. He noted that CAPER is the only voluntary national reporting registry for AEs from dermatologic procedures.

What the Registry Shows So Far

The registry matched 72 of the 81 cases with type of provider, with dermatologist-conducted procedures (51, 70.8%) comprising the majority, followed by nonphysician-conducted procedures (14, 19.4%) and nondermatologist physician–conducted procedures (7, 9.7%).

Of the 81 total cases, the following reports were related to laser and energy device treatments: 12 (14.3%) from nonablative laser treatments, five (6%) from light treatments, and three (3.6%) from ablative laser treatments, Dr. Koza said.

Among nonablative laser treatments, the most common AE was blistering (six reports, 50%). Scar, pain, and hypopigmentation accounted for two cases each (16.67%). Dermatologists performed seven of these cases (58.3%); nonphysicians, four (33.3%); and a non-dermatologist physician, one (8.3%).

For intense pulsed-light treatments, burns were the most common AEs (three reports, 60%), with swelling and inflammation each accounting for one case (20%). Three of these cases (75%) were confirmed to have been performed by nonphysicians.

The ablative laser treatment AEs included one case each of hypopigmentation, scar, and erythema. Two of the three cases were confirmed to have been performed by dermatologists.

Dr. Koza acknowledged the low number of cases is a limitation of this analysis of registry reports. A future goal for CAPER is to publicize it more, he said. “The registry is only 3 years old,” he told this news organization. “Hopefully, we can get more data as time goes on. We’ve been getting more and more each year.” CAPER adapted data entry forms used in other registries.

Submitting a case to the registry takes about 15 minutes of the provider’s time, Dr. Koza said. “We can streamline that to make it easier for people to submit their adverse events,” he said in an interview.

Only registry staff have access to the reports, and when reported, the data “is de-identified and any identifying information pertaining to the patient or reporter is removed,” according to a statement on the CAPER website.
 

‘Needs a Little Help’

Jennifer Lin, MD, a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was at the meeting, commented on the onerous reporting process and the “low” enrollment. “It’s such an important initiative and with everyone over-logging e-mails, a 15-minute entry just is not going to cut it,” she told this news organization.

For providers, reporting AEs is stressful, she said. “As it is, it’s hard to voluntarily submit an adverse event,” Dr. Lin continued. “There’s a feeling of shame. Hospitals require it in order to monitor adverse events, but there’s no monitoring when you’re out in your own private practice.”

“The idea is excellent, but I think to facilitate better enrollment, the word has to get out at all these meetings” and make it easier to submit cases, Dr. Lin added. “It’s a good idea, but it needs a little help.”

Information on submitting AE reports to CAPER is available on the CAPER website.

Dr. Koza and Dr. Lin had no relevant relationships to disclose.

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

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

BALTIMORE — Laser treatment for solar lentigines in individuals with darker skin types has long been associated with a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), but a small study in Thailand has shown the 532-nm picosecond laser with a fractional beam microlens array (MLA) had a significantly lower incidence of PIH than the full-beam treatment without MLA.

The study enrolled 27 patients with solar lentigines and Fitzpatrick skin types (FSTs) III-IV, Woraphong Manuskiatti, MD, professor of dermatology at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. They received the fractional beam treatment on one side of the face and the full-beam on the other side. At 6 months, the incidence of PIH was about 81% lower on the fractional-beam side, Dr. Manuskiatti said.

“In the past, when we used laser to treat pigmented lesions, we used the so-called full-beam technique on the pigmented area,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization. “From the study, we found that you don’t need to treat it at 100%. You can fractionally treat the pigmented lesion and get a really comparable treatment outcome and, at that reduced beam, less incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.”
 

Study Design and Results

Of the 27 patients in the study, 12 were FST III (44%), 14 were FST IV (52%), and one was FST V (4%). On the fractional-beam side, the laser was delivered through a 9-mm spot size with an average fluence of 0.47 J/cm² at a frequency of 2 Hz for a total of two passes without pulse overlapping. On the full-beam side, the laser was operated with a 4.5-mm handpiece, with fluence ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 J/cm² (using an endpoint of slight darkening of the pigmented lesion) at 2 Hz.

The patients received a single treatment and had a clinical evaluation and color reading assessments at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment. Twenty-five patients completed the study.

The researchers found no statistically significant differences in lesional clearance between the two techniques at any of the follow-up assessments, Dr. Manuskiatti said. “This might be one of the alternative treatments of treating solar lentigines in dark-skinned patients,” he said when presenting the study results.

He reported the rates of PIH on the full-beam and fractional-beam sides, respectively, at the following intervals were: 64% and 8% at 2 weeks, 80% and 32% at 1 month, 96% and 36% at 3 months, and 88% and 16% at 6 months.

“The incidence of PIH on the full-beam side was statistically higher than that on the fractional-beam side throughout the follow-up period,” he said. Transient and mild hypopigmentation was observed in one patient (4%) on the fractional-beam side and in five (20%) on the full-beam side. Dr. Manuskiatti added that no other adverse effects were documented during the study.

“ Normally when you use laser to treat skin type I or II, you don’t have … PIH or darkening of the skin,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization, “but when you have skin type III and above, you run into a really high incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation — and treating that with fractional beam can lead to a reduced incidence of darkening of the skin afterward.”
 

A Lower-Cost Option

This study showed that the 532-nm picosecond laser with fractional beam MLA is a useful option for patients with darker skin types, Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Park City, Utah, and moderated the session where these results were presented, told this news organization.

“The most challenging thing about treating lentigines in darker skin types is preventing potential side effects, mainly dyspigmentation,” she said after the meeting. “These side effects are, for the most part, temporary, but they can take 6-18 months to resolve, so it’s important to prevent them in the first place.”

She noted that the 532-nm and 1064-nm wavelengths are the most commonly available for picosecond lasers and that they’re easier to produce and less expensive. “There are picosecond lasers with middle wavelengths in the red light to near-infrared range (650-785 nm) that are better for darker skin types because they are more gentle yet still effective at targeting pigment, but these lasers are more expensive and less widely available,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. 

“The microlens array, used in this study with the 532-nm wavelength, is an inexpensive piece that fits at the end of the laser,” she added. “So, to have an option that turns a 532-nm laser into a safer device for the treatment of lentigines in darker skin types is very helpful.”

Dr. Manuskiatti and Dr. Stankiewicz had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

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

BALTIMORE — Laser treatment for solar lentigines in individuals with darker skin types has long been associated with a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), but a small study in Thailand has shown the 532-nm picosecond laser with a fractional beam microlens array (MLA) had a significantly lower incidence of PIH than the full-beam treatment without MLA.

The study enrolled 27 patients with solar lentigines and Fitzpatrick skin types (FSTs) III-IV, Woraphong Manuskiatti, MD, professor of dermatology at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. They received the fractional beam treatment on one side of the face and the full-beam on the other side. At 6 months, the incidence of PIH was about 81% lower on the fractional-beam side, Dr. Manuskiatti said.

“In the past, when we used laser to treat pigmented lesions, we used the so-called full-beam technique on the pigmented area,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization. “From the study, we found that you don’t need to treat it at 100%. You can fractionally treat the pigmented lesion and get a really comparable treatment outcome and, at that reduced beam, less incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.”
 

Study Design and Results

Of the 27 patients in the study, 12 were FST III (44%), 14 were FST IV (52%), and one was FST V (4%). On the fractional-beam side, the laser was delivered through a 9-mm spot size with an average fluence of 0.47 J/cm² at a frequency of 2 Hz for a total of two passes without pulse overlapping. On the full-beam side, the laser was operated with a 4.5-mm handpiece, with fluence ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 J/cm² (using an endpoint of slight darkening of the pigmented lesion) at 2 Hz.

The patients received a single treatment and had a clinical evaluation and color reading assessments at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment. Twenty-five patients completed the study.

The researchers found no statistically significant differences in lesional clearance between the two techniques at any of the follow-up assessments, Dr. Manuskiatti said. “This might be one of the alternative treatments of treating solar lentigines in dark-skinned patients,” he said when presenting the study results.

He reported the rates of PIH on the full-beam and fractional-beam sides, respectively, at the following intervals were: 64% and 8% at 2 weeks, 80% and 32% at 1 month, 96% and 36% at 3 months, and 88% and 16% at 6 months.

“The incidence of PIH on the full-beam side was statistically higher than that on the fractional-beam side throughout the follow-up period,” he said. Transient and mild hypopigmentation was observed in one patient (4%) on the fractional-beam side and in five (20%) on the full-beam side. Dr. Manuskiatti added that no other adverse effects were documented during the study.

“ Normally when you use laser to treat skin type I or II, you don’t have … PIH or darkening of the skin,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization, “but when you have skin type III and above, you run into a really high incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation — and treating that with fractional beam can lead to a reduced incidence of darkening of the skin afterward.”
 

A Lower-Cost Option

This study showed that the 532-nm picosecond laser with fractional beam MLA is a useful option for patients with darker skin types, Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Park City, Utah, and moderated the session where these results were presented, told this news organization.

“The most challenging thing about treating lentigines in darker skin types is preventing potential side effects, mainly dyspigmentation,” she said after the meeting. “These side effects are, for the most part, temporary, but they can take 6-18 months to resolve, so it’s important to prevent them in the first place.”

She noted that the 532-nm and 1064-nm wavelengths are the most commonly available for picosecond lasers and that they’re easier to produce and less expensive. “There are picosecond lasers with middle wavelengths in the red light to near-infrared range (650-785 nm) that are better for darker skin types because they are more gentle yet still effective at targeting pigment, but these lasers are more expensive and less widely available,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. 

“The microlens array, used in this study with the 532-nm wavelength, is an inexpensive piece that fits at the end of the laser,” she added. “So, to have an option that turns a 532-nm laser into a safer device for the treatment of lentigines in darker skin types is very helpful.”

Dr. Manuskiatti and Dr. Stankiewicz had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

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

BALTIMORE — Laser treatment for solar lentigines in individuals with darker skin types has long been associated with a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), but a small study in Thailand has shown the 532-nm picosecond laser with a fractional beam microlens array (MLA) had a significantly lower incidence of PIH than the full-beam treatment without MLA.

The study enrolled 27 patients with solar lentigines and Fitzpatrick skin types (FSTs) III-IV, Woraphong Manuskiatti, MD, professor of dermatology at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. They received the fractional beam treatment on one side of the face and the full-beam on the other side. At 6 months, the incidence of PIH was about 81% lower on the fractional-beam side, Dr. Manuskiatti said.

“In the past, when we used laser to treat pigmented lesions, we used the so-called full-beam technique on the pigmented area,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization. “From the study, we found that you don’t need to treat it at 100%. You can fractionally treat the pigmented lesion and get a really comparable treatment outcome and, at that reduced beam, less incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.”
 

Study Design and Results

Of the 27 patients in the study, 12 were FST III (44%), 14 were FST IV (52%), and one was FST V (4%). On the fractional-beam side, the laser was delivered through a 9-mm spot size with an average fluence of 0.47 J/cm² at a frequency of 2 Hz for a total of two passes without pulse overlapping. On the full-beam side, the laser was operated with a 4.5-mm handpiece, with fluence ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 J/cm² (using an endpoint of slight darkening of the pigmented lesion) at 2 Hz.

The patients received a single treatment and had a clinical evaluation and color reading assessments at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment. Twenty-five patients completed the study.

The researchers found no statistically significant differences in lesional clearance between the two techniques at any of the follow-up assessments, Dr. Manuskiatti said. “This might be one of the alternative treatments of treating solar lentigines in dark-skinned patients,” he said when presenting the study results.

He reported the rates of PIH on the full-beam and fractional-beam sides, respectively, at the following intervals were: 64% and 8% at 2 weeks, 80% and 32% at 1 month, 96% and 36% at 3 months, and 88% and 16% at 6 months.

“The incidence of PIH on the full-beam side was statistically higher than that on the fractional-beam side throughout the follow-up period,” he said. Transient and mild hypopigmentation was observed in one patient (4%) on the fractional-beam side and in five (20%) on the full-beam side. Dr. Manuskiatti added that no other adverse effects were documented during the study.

“ Normally when you use laser to treat skin type I or II, you don’t have … PIH or darkening of the skin,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization, “but when you have skin type III and above, you run into a really high incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation — and treating that with fractional beam can lead to a reduced incidence of darkening of the skin afterward.”
 

A Lower-Cost Option

This study showed that the 532-nm picosecond laser with fractional beam MLA is a useful option for patients with darker skin types, Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Park City, Utah, and moderated the session where these results were presented, told this news organization.

“The most challenging thing about treating lentigines in darker skin types is preventing potential side effects, mainly dyspigmentation,” she said after the meeting. “These side effects are, for the most part, temporary, but they can take 6-18 months to resolve, so it’s important to prevent them in the first place.”

She noted that the 532-nm and 1064-nm wavelengths are the most commonly available for picosecond lasers and that they’re easier to produce and less expensive. “There are picosecond lasers with middle wavelengths in the red light to near-infrared range (650-785 nm) that are better for darker skin types because they are more gentle yet still effective at targeting pigment, but these lasers are more expensive and less widely available,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. 

“The microlens array, used in this study with the 532-nm wavelength, is an inexpensive piece that fits at the end of the laser,” she added. “So, to have an option that turns a 532-nm laser into a safer device for the treatment of lentigines in darker skin types is very helpful.”

Dr. Manuskiatti and Dr. Stankiewicz had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

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

Alerting neurologists via telemedicine that a patient with suspected acute stroke is en route to the hospital significantly enhances the speed at which thrombolysis is administered and increases the number of patients who receive timelier, potentially lifesaving treatment, new research showed.

“This preliminary evidence supports adopting teleneurology prenotification as a best practice within health systems that have telestroke capabilities,” said study investigator Mark McDonald, MD, a neurologist at TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Florida.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Best Practices

The impact of emergency medical services prenotification, which refers to paramedics alerting receiving hospital emergency departments (EDs) of a suspected stroke on the way for appropriate preparations to be made, is well-defined, said Dr. McDonald.

“What we’re proposing as a best practice is not only should the ED or ED provider be aware, but there needs to be a system in place for standardizing communication to the neurology team so they’re aware, too.”

Prenotification allows a neurologist to “get on the screen to begin coordinating with the ED team to adequately prepare for the possibility of thrombolytic treatment,” he added.

Currently, teleneurology prenotification, he said, is variable and its benefits unclear.

Dr. McDonald said “his organization, TeleSpecialists, maintains a large detailed medical records database for emergency-related, teleneurology, and other cases. For stroke, it recommends 15 best practices” for facilities including prenotification of teleneurology.

Other best practices include evaluating and administering thrombolysis in the CT imaging suite, a preassembled stroke kit that includes antihypertensives and thrombolytic agents, ensuring a weigh bed is available to determine the exact dose of thrombolysis treatment, and implementing “mock” stroke alerts, said Dr. McDonald.

From the database, researchers extracted acute telestroke consultations seen in the ED in 103 facilities in 15 states. Facilities that did not adhere to the 14 best practices other than teleneurologist prenotification were excluded from the analysis.

Of 9290 patients included in the study, 731 were treated with thrombolysis at prenotification facilities (median age, 69 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Score [NIHSS], 8) and 31 were treated at facilities without prenotification (median age, 63 years; median NIHSS score, 4). The thrombolytic treatment rate was 8.5% at prenotification facilities versus 4.8% at facilities without prenotification — a difference that was statistically significant.

Prenotification facilities had a significantly shorter median door-to-needle (DTN) time than those without such a process at 35 versus 43 minutes. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients with times less than 60 minutes at approximately 88% at prenotification facilities versus about 68% at the facilities without prenotification.
 

Case-Level Analysis

However, just because a facility adheres to teleneurology prenotification as a whole, doesn’t mean it occurs in every case. Researchers explored the impact of teleneurology prenotification at the case level rather than the facility level.

“That gave us a bit more insight into the real impact because it’s not just being at a facility with the best practice; it’s actually working case by case to see whether it happened or not and that’s where we get the most compelling findings,” said Dr. McDonald.

Of 761 treatment cases, there was prenotification to the neurology team in 401 cases. In 360 cases, prenotification did not occur.

The median DTN time was 29 minutes in the group with actual prenotification vs 41.5 minutes in the group without actual prenotification, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. McDonald said.

As for treatment within 30 minutes of arrival, 50.4% of patients in the teleneurology prenotification group versus 18.9% in the no prenotification group — a statistically significant difference.

DTN time of less than 30 minutes is increasingly used as a target. “Being treated within this time frame improves outcomes and reduces length of hospital stay,” said Dr. McDonald.

The prenotification group also had a statistically significant higher percentage of treatment within 60 minutes of hospital arrival (93.5% vs 80%).

These new findings should help convince health and telestroke systems that teleneurology prenotification is worth implementing. “We want to achieve consensus on this as a best practice,” said Dr. McDonald.

Prenotification, he added, “coordinates the process and eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming steps.”

Dr. McDonald plans to prospectively study prenotification by collecting data on a facility before and after implementing a prenotification process.
 

Compelling Evidence

Commenting on the research, David L. Tirschwell, MD, Harborview Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Seattle, who cochaired the AAN session featuring the research, said the study provides compelling evidence that teleneurologist prenotification improves DTN time.

“Prenotifications are often standard of care in many healthcare settings and should likely be considered a best practice. When possible, extending such prenotification to a teleconsultant would make sense, and these preliminary data support that approach.”

However, more details are needed “to consider whether the intervention is possibly generalizable to other telestroke practices across the United States,” said Dr. Tirschwell.

Dr. McDonald reported receiving personal compensation for serving as a consultant for Syntrillo Inc. and has stock in Syntrillo Inc. Dr. Tirschwell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Alerting neurologists via telemedicine that a patient with suspected acute stroke is en route to the hospital significantly enhances the speed at which thrombolysis is administered and increases the number of patients who receive timelier, potentially lifesaving treatment, new research showed.

“This preliminary evidence supports adopting teleneurology prenotification as a best practice within health systems that have telestroke capabilities,” said study investigator Mark McDonald, MD, a neurologist at TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Florida.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Best Practices

The impact of emergency medical services prenotification, which refers to paramedics alerting receiving hospital emergency departments (EDs) of a suspected stroke on the way for appropriate preparations to be made, is well-defined, said Dr. McDonald.

“What we’re proposing as a best practice is not only should the ED or ED provider be aware, but there needs to be a system in place for standardizing communication to the neurology team so they’re aware, too.”

Prenotification allows a neurologist to “get on the screen to begin coordinating with the ED team to adequately prepare for the possibility of thrombolytic treatment,” he added.

Currently, teleneurology prenotification, he said, is variable and its benefits unclear.

Dr. McDonald said “his organization, TeleSpecialists, maintains a large detailed medical records database for emergency-related, teleneurology, and other cases. For stroke, it recommends 15 best practices” for facilities including prenotification of teleneurology.

Other best practices include evaluating and administering thrombolysis in the CT imaging suite, a preassembled stroke kit that includes antihypertensives and thrombolytic agents, ensuring a weigh bed is available to determine the exact dose of thrombolysis treatment, and implementing “mock” stroke alerts, said Dr. McDonald.

From the database, researchers extracted acute telestroke consultations seen in the ED in 103 facilities in 15 states. Facilities that did not adhere to the 14 best practices other than teleneurologist prenotification were excluded from the analysis.

Of 9290 patients included in the study, 731 were treated with thrombolysis at prenotification facilities (median age, 69 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Score [NIHSS], 8) and 31 were treated at facilities without prenotification (median age, 63 years; median NIHSS score, 4). The thrombolytic treatment rate was 8.5% at prenotification facilities versus 4.8% at facilities without prenotification — a difference that was statistically significant.

Prenotification facilities had a significantly shorter median door-to-needle (DTN) time than those without such a process at 35 versus 43 minutes. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients with times less than 60 minutes at approximately 88% at prenotification facilities versus about 68% at the facilities without prenotification.
 

Case-Level Analysis

However, just because a facility adheres to teleneurology prenotification as a whole, doesn’t mean it occurs in every case. Researchers explored the impact of teleneurology prenotification at the case level rather than the facility level.

“That gave us a bit more insight into the real impact because it’s not just being at a facility with the best practice; it’s actually working case by case to see whether it happened or not and that’s where we get the most compelling findings,” said Dr. McDonald.

Of 761 treatment cases, there was prenotification to the neurology team in 401 cases. In 360 cases, prenotification did not occur.

The median DTN time was 29 minutes in the group with actual prenotification vs 41.5 minutes in the group without actual prenotification, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. McDonald said.

As for treatment within 30 minutes of arrival, 50.4% of patients in the teleneurology prenotification group versus 18.9% in the no prenotification group — a statistically significant difference.

DTN time of less than 30 minutes is increasingly used as a target. “Being treated within this time frame improves outcomes and reduces length of hospital stay,” said Dr. McDonald.

The prenotification group also had a statistically significant higher percentage of treatment within 60 minutes of hospital arrival (93.5% vs 80%).

These new findings should help convince health and telestroke systems that teleneurology prenotification is worth implementing. “We want to achieve consensus on this as a best practice,” said Dr. McDonald.

Prenotification, he added, “coordinates the process and eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming steps.”

Dr. McDonald plans to prospectively study prenotification by collecting data on a facility before and after implementing a prenotification process.
 

Compelling Evidence

Commenting on the research, David L. Tirschwell, MD, Harborview Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Seattle, who cochaired the AAN session featuring the research, said the study provides compelling evidence that teleneurologist prenotification improves DTN time.

“Prenotifications are often standard of care in many healthcare settings and should likely be considered a best practice. When possible, extending such prenotification to a teleconsultant would make sense, and these preliminary data support that approach.”

However, more details are needed “to consider whether the intervention is possibly generalizable to other telestroke practices across the United States,” said Dr. Tirschwell.

Dr. McDonald reported receiving personal compensation for serving as a consultant for Syntrillo Inc. and has stock in Syntrillo Inc. Dr. Tirschwell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Alerting neurologists via telemedicine that a patient with suspected acute stroke is en route to the hospital significantly enhances the speed at which thrombolysis is administered and increases the number of patients who receive timelier, potentially lifesaving treatment, new research showed.

“This preliminary evidence supports adopting teleneurology prenotification as a best practice within health systems that have telestroke capabilities,” said study investigator Mark McDonald, MD, a neurologist at TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Florida.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Best Practices

The impact of emergency medical services prenotification, which refers to paramedics alerting receiving hospital emergency departments (EDs) of a suspected stroke on the way for appropriate preparations to be made, is well-defined, said Dr. McDonald.

“What we’re proposing as a best practice is not only should the ED or ED provider be aware, but there needs to be a system in place for standardizing communication to the neurology team so they’re aware, too.”

Prenotification allows a neurologist to “get on the screen to begin coordinating with the ED team to adequately prepare for the possibility of thrombolytic treatment,” he added.

Currently, teleneurology prenotification, he said, is variable and its benefits unclear.

Dr. McDonald said “his organization, TeleSpecialists, maintains a large detailed medical records database for emergency-related, teleneurology, and other cases. For stroke, it recommends 15 best practices” for facilities including prenotification of teleneurology.

Other best practices include evaluating and administering thrombolysis in the CT imaging suite, a preassembled stroke kit that includes antihypertensives and thrombolytic agents, ensuring a weigh bed is available to determine the exact dose of thrombolysis treatment, and implementing “mock” stroke alerts, said Dr. McDonald.

From the database, researchers extracted acute telestroke consultations seen in the ED in 103 facilities in 15 states. Facilities that did not adhere to the 14 best practices other than teleneurologist prenotification were excluded from the analysis.

Of 9290 patients included in the study, 731 were treated with thrombolysis at prenotification facilities (median age, 69 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Score [NIHSS], 8) and 31 were treated at facilities without prenotification (median age, 63 years; median NIHSS score, 4). The thrombolytic treatment rate was 8.5% at prenotification facilities versus 4.8% at facilities without prenotification — a difference that was statistically significant.

Prenotification facilities had a significantly shorter median door-to-needle (DTN) time than those without such a process at 35 versus 43 minutes. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients with times less than 60 minutes at approximately 88% at prenotification facilities versus about 68% at the facilities without prenotification.
 

Case-Level Analysis

However, just because a facility adheres to teleneurology prenotification as a whole, doesn’t mean it occurs in every case. Researchers explored the impact of teleneurology prenotification at the case level rather than the facility level.

“That gave us a bit more insight into the real impact because it’s not just being at a facility with the best practice; it’s actually working case by case to see whether it happened or not and that’s where we get the most compelling findings,” said Dr. McDonald.

Of 761 treatment cases, there was prenotification to the neurology team in 401 cases. In 360 cases, prenotification did not occur.

The median DTN time was 29 minutes in the group with actual prenotification vs 41.5 minutes in the group without actual prenotification, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. McDonald said.

As for treatment within 30 minutes of arrival, 50.4% of patients in the teleneurology prenotification group versus 18.9% in the no prenotification group — a statistically significant difference.

DTN time of less than 30 minutes is increasingly used as a target. “Being treated within this time frame improves outcomes and reduces length of hospital stay,” said Dr. McDonald.

The prenotification group also had a statistically significant higher percentage of treatment within 60 minutes of hospital arrival (93.5% vs 80%).

These new findings should help convince health and telestroke systems that teleneurology prenotification is worth implementing. “We want to achieve consensus on this as a best practice,” said Dr. McDonald.

Prenotification, he added, “coordinates the process and eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming steps.”

Dr. McDonald plans to prospectively study prenotification by collecting data on a facility before and after implementing a prenotification process.
 

Compelling Evidence

Commenting on the research, David L. Tirschwell, MD, Harborview Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Seattle, who cochaired the AAN session featuring the research, said the study provides compelling evidence that teleneurologist prenotification improves DTN time.

“Prenotifications are often standard of care in many healthcare settings and should likely be considered a best practice. When possible, extending such prenotification to a teleconsultant would make sense, and these preliminary data support that approach.”

However, more details are needed “to consider whether the intervention is possibly generalizable to other telestroke practices across the United States,” said Dr. Tirschwell.

Dr. McDonald reported receiving personal compensation for serving as a consultant for Syntrillo Inc. and has stock in Syntrillo Inc. Dr. Tirschwell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Key novel genetic signatures in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) strongly correlate with improved survival outcomes in treatment with the anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).

“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”

The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.

Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.

In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”

Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.

Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.

After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10^-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10^-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.

The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”

Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10^-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10^-14).

The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.

“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.

Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.

Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.

Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”

“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.

“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”

Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.

“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.” 

Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.

“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.

“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”

Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.

Key novel genetic signatures in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) strongly correlate with improved survival outcomes in treatment with the anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).

“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”

The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.

Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.

In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”

Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.

Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.

After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10^-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10^-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.

The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”

Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10^-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10^-14).

The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.

“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.

Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.

Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.

Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”

“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.

“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”

Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.

“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.” 

Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.

“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.

“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”

Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.

Key novel genetic signatures in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) strongly correlate with improved survival outcomes in treatment with the anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).

“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”

The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.

Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.

In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”

Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.

Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.

After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10^-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10^-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.

The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”

Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10^-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10^-14).

The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.

“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.

Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.

Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.

Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”

“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.

“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”

Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.

“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.” 

Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.

“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.

“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”

Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.