Randy Dotinga

The first rule about infantile hemangiomas: Make sure they’re actually infantile hemangiomas, a pediatric dermatologist urged colleagues. Then watch patients closely, refer to specialists when appropriate, and consider propranolol in complicated or high-risk cases, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“In my career as a pediatric dermatologist, propranolol has been a life changer for us more than any other medicine,” said Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey.

Before the point where propranolol is prescribed, confirm the diagnosis and use the correct terminology, she advised. It’s still appropriate to use the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) vascular lesion classification system released in 1982. “For most people, it serves the purpose well,” she said. Another option is an updated and more complex classification system from 2015.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted two studies – one published in 2011 and the other published in 2020 – that revealed high levels of misclassification of vascular malformations in research reports. The earlier study found that 21% of patients with misclassified lesions were mistreated, compared with none of those who were classified using ISSVA terminology.

“I cannot stress [proper classification] enough when you’re dealing with babies and children with vascular lesions. If not sure, be vague. Say ‘a vascular tumor’ or a ‘vascular malformation.’ But only reserve ‘infantile hemangioma’ for that very diagnosis,” she said.

As Dr. Zaenglein noted, infantile hemangiomas affect 5%-10% of 1-year-olds, of whom 20% have multiple lesions. They’re more common in females by a 3-to-1 margin, and also seen more in premature infants, and in cases of multiple births, higher maternal age, and low birth weight.

The pathogenesis of these lesions is unclear, she said, although there are hints about genetic components and tissue hypoxia, among other possible causes. “Importantly, you get 80% of the growth by 3-4 months of age. Then it’ll slow in its growth and kind of slowly go away over time, but it’s not linear regression. It’s more that you get more improvement up front, usually until about 5, and then you can get some continued gradual evolution up until about 7 or 10 years of age.”

Complications can include ulceration, infection and – in rare cases – hemorrhage and high-output cardiac failure, she said. “Knowing which ones are at high risk for complications is important, and also there are systemic associations that we have to be mindful of. We also want to think about aesthetic outcomes as well when we talk about management of infantile hemangiomas.”

High-risk infantile hemangiomas include those with the following features:

• Extensive facial involvement. Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a case of a 2-year-old baby with a large, bulky hemangioma that distorted facial features around the eye. “This would be a medical emergency” requiring immediate evaluation and treatment, she said.
• Periocular involvement. Refer to ophthalmology, she recommended. “Even smaller hemangiomas can cause refractive errors or amblyopia, and oftentimes need to be treated with either systemic or topical therapy depending on the size and extent,” she said.
• PHACE syndrome (Posterior fossa malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, eye abnormalities). “Propranolol has been safely used in PHACE, but every patient is different,” she said. “You need to make sure to do a good risk assessment before starting because if they have narrowed blood flow or limited blood flow, there is a question of whether there is potential risk for stroke if you drop a baby’s blood pressure. Make sure that the vasculature is evaluated before started on propranolol. Also, there are recent reports of risk of long-term risk of stroke with PHACE syndrome as patients are getting into their adulthood.”
• Beard distribution. Be aware of possible airway involvement that can be revealed by biphasic stridor. In those cases, immediate treatment – perhaps even with tracheostomy – is needed to avoid mortality, she said.
• Multiple sites: Patients with five or more hemangiomas may have liver involvement, she said, and should undergo hepatic evaluation. Consider evaluating if this is suspected, even if the number of hemangiomas is under five, she said.
• Perineal/lumbosacral involvement: A third of these cases are associated with spinal dysraphism. Refer to neurosurgery, she recommended.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a report on the use of propranolol published in 2008 and noted that clinical practice guidelines for managing infantile hemangiomas published in 2019 are also helpful.

Flat hemangiomas, meanwhile, can benefit from timolol maleate 0.5% solution or gel-forming solution – 1 drop twice daily or 2 drops once daily, she said. This treatment should be avoided in thick hemangiomas, she said.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed consulting fees (Dermata, Cassiopea, and Regeneron), and fees for contracted research support (Incyte).

The first rule about infantile hemangiomas: Make sure they’re actually infantile hemangiomas, a pediatric dermatologist urged colleagues. Then watch patients closely, refer to specialists when appropriate, and consider propranolol in complicated or high-risk cases, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“In my career as a pediatric dermatologist, propranolol has been a life changer for us more than any other medicine,” said Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey.

Before the point where propranolol is prescribed, confirm the diagnosis and use the correct terminology, she advised. It’s still appropriate to use the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) vascular lesion classification system released in 1982. “For most people, it serves the purpose well,” she said. Another option is an updated and more complex classification system from 2015.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted two studies – one published in 2011 and the other published in 2020 – that revealed high levels of misclassification of vascular malformations in research reports. The earlier study found that 21% of patients with misclassified lesions were mistreated, compared with none of those who were classified using ISSVA terminology.

“I cannot stress [proper classification] enough when you’re dealing with babies and children with vascular lesions. If not sure, be vague. Say ‘a vascular tumor’ or a ‘vascular malformation.’ But only reserve ‘infantile hemangioma’ for that very diagnosis,” she said.

As Dr. Zaenglein noted, infantile hemangiomas affect 5%-10% of 1-year-olds, of whom 20% have multiple lesions. They’re more common in females by a 3-to-1 margin, and also seen more in premature infants, and in cases of multiple births, higher maternal age, and low birth weight.

The pathogenesis of these lesions is unclear, she said, although there are hints about genetic components and tissue hypoxia, among other possible causes. “Importantly, you get 80% of the growth by 3-4 months of age. Then it’ll slow in its growth and kind of slowly go away over time, but it’s not linear regression. It’s more that you get more improvement up front, usually until about 5, and then you can get some continued gradual evolution up until about 7 or 10 years of age.”

Complications can include ulceration, infection and – in rare cases – hemorrhage and high-output cardiac failure, she said. “Knowing which ones are at high risk for complications is important, and also there are systemic associations that we have to be mindful of. We also want to think about aesthetic outcomes as well when we talk about management of infantile hemangiomas.”

High-risk infantile hemangiomas include those with the following features:

• Extensive facial involvement. Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a case of a 2-year-old baby with a large, bulky hemangioma that distorted facial features around the eye. “This would be a medical emergency” requiring immediate evaluation and treatment, she said.
• Periocular involvement. Refer to ophthalmology, she recommended. “Even smaller hemangiomas can cause refractive errors or amblyopia, and oftentimes need to be treated with either systemic or topical therapy depending on the size and extent,” she said.
• PHACE syndrome (Posterior fossa malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, eye abnormalities). “Propranolol has been safely used in PHACE, but every patient is different,” she said. “You need to make sure to do a good risk assessment before starting because if they have narrowed blood flow or limited blood flow, there is a question of whether there is potential risk for stroke if you drop a baby’s blood pressure. Make sure that the vasculature is evaluated before started on propranolol. Also, there are recent reports of risk of long-term risk of stroke with PHACE syndrome as patients are getting into their adulthood.”
• Beard distribution. Be aware of possible airway involvement that can be revealed by biphasic stridor. In those cases, immediate treatment – perhaps even with tracheostomy – is needed to avoid mortality, she said.
• Multiple sites: Patients with five or more hemangiomas may have liver involvement, she said, and should undergo hepatic evaluation. Consider evaluating if this is suspected, even if the number of hemangiomas is under five, she said.
• Perineal/lumbosacral involvement: A third of these cases are associated with spinal dysraphism. Refer to neurosurgery, she recommended.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a report on the use of propranolol published in 2008 and noted that clinical practice guidelines for managing infantile hemangiomas published in 2019 are also helpful.

Flat hemangiomas, meanwhile, can benefit from timolol maleate 0.5% solution or gel-forming solution – 1 drop twice daily or 2 drops once daily, she said. This treatment should be avoided in thick hemangiomas, she said.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed consulting fees (Dermata, Cassiopea, and Regeneron), and fees for contracted research support (Incyte).

The first rule about infantile hemangiomas: Make sure they’re actually infantile hemangiomas, a pediatric dermatologist urged colleagues. Then watch patients closely, refer to specialists when appropriate, and consider propranolol in complicated or high-risk cases, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“In my career as a pediatric dermatologist, propranolol has been a life changer for us more than any other medicine,” said Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey.

Before the point where propranolol is prescribed, confirm the diagnosis and use the correct terminology, she advised. It’s still appropriate to use the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) vascular lesion classification system released in 1982. “For most people, it serves the purpose well,” she said. Another option is an updated and more complex classification system from 2015.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted two studies – one published in 2011 and the other published in 2020 – that revealed high levels of misclassification of vascular malformations in research reports. The earlier study found that 21% of patients with misclassified lesions were mistreated, compared with none of those who were classified using ISSVA terminology.

“I cannot stress [proper classification] enough when you’re dealing with babies and children with vascular lesions. If not sure, be vague. Say ‘a vascular tumor’ or a ‘vascular malformation.’ But only reserve ‘infantile hemangioma’ for that very diagnosis,” she said.

As Dr. Zaenglein noted, infantile hemangiomas affect 5%-10% of 1-year-olds, of whom 20% have multiple lesions. They’re more common in females by a 3-to-1 margin, and also seen more in premature infants, and in cases of multiple births, higher maternal age, and low birth weight.

The pathogenesis of these lesions is unclear, she said, although there are hints about genetic components and tissue hypoxia, among other possible causes. “Importantly, you get 80% of the growth by 3-4 months of age. Then it’ll slow in its growth and kind of slowly go away over time, but it’s not linear regression. It’s more that you get more improvement up front, usually until about 5, and then you can get some continued gradual evolution up until about 7 or 10 years of age.”

Complications can include ulceration, infection and – in rare cases – hemorrhage and high-output cardiac failure, she said. “Knowing which ones are at high risk for complications is important, and also there are systemic associations that we have to be mindful of. We also want to think about aesthetic outcomes as well when we talk about management of infantile hemangiomas.”

High-risk infantile hemangiomas include those with the following features:

• Extensive facial involvement. Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a case of a 2-year-old baby with a large, bulky hemangioma that distorted facial features around the eye. “This would be a medical emergency” requiring immediate evaluation and treatment, she said.
• Periocular involvement. Refer to ophthalmology, she recommended. “Even smaller hemangiomas can cause refractive errors or amblyopia, and oftentimes need to be treated with either systemic or topical therapy depending on the size and extent,” she said.
• PHACE syndrome (Posterior fossa malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, eye abnormalities). “Propranolol has been safely used in PHACE, but every patient is different,” she said. “You need to make sure to do a good risk assessment before starting because if they have narrowed blood flow or limited blood flow, there is a question of whether there is potential risk for stroke if you drop a baby’s blood pressure. Make sure that the vasculature is evaluated before started on propranolol. Also, there are recent reports of risk of long-term risk of stroke with PHACE syndrome as patients are getting into their adulthood.”
• Beard distribution. Be aware of possible airway involvement that can be revealed by biphasic stridor. In those cases, immediate treatment – perhaps even with tracheostomy – is needed to avoid mortality, she said.
• Multiple sites: Patients with five or more hemangiomas may have liver involvement, she said, and should undergo hepatic evaluation. Consider evaluating if this is suspected, even if the number of hemangiomas is under five, she said.
• Perineal/lumbosacral involvement: A third of these cases are associated with spinal dysraphism. Refer to neurosurgery, she recommended.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a report on the use of propranolol published in 2008 and noted that clinical practice guidelines for managing infantile hemangiomas published in 2019 are also helpful.

Flat hemangiomas, meanwhile, can benefit from timolol maleate 0.5% solution or gel-forming solution – 1 drop twice daily or 2 drops once daily, she said. This treatment should be avoided in thick hemangiomas, she said.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed consulting fees (Dermata, Cassiopea, and Regeneron), and fees for contracted research support (Incyte).

A wide variety of medications exists for treating hyperhidrosis, a dermatologist told colleagues, but before prescribing anything to a pediatric patient, he recommended, ask the patient a simple question: “What bothers you the most?”

The answer will provide guidance for developing a step-by-step treatment strategy and help provide the patient “a set of realistic expectations in terms of what the response will look like,” George Hightower, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatologist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

A similar question-based approach will help guide therapy for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), he said.

With regards to hyperhidrosis, Dr. Hightower said that patients most commonly complain that their underarms are too smelly, too sweaty, and red, itchy, or painful. Causes, he said, can include irritation/contact dermatitis, folliculitis, and seborrheic dermatitis, as well as hyperhidrosis or HS.

Primary focal axillary hyperhidrosis is defined as focal, visible, excessive sweating for at least 6 months without an apparent cause plus at least two of the following characteristics: Sweating is bilateral and relatively symmetric, it impairs daily activities, it starts before the age of 25 with at least one episode per week (many patients have it daily), a family history of idiopathic hyperhidrosis is present, and focal sweating does not occur during sleep.

Secondary hyperhidrosis can be linked to other conditions, such as a spinal column injury, Dr. Hightower noted.

The first step on the treatment ladder is topical 20% aluminum chloride, which is available over the counter. This should be applied nightly for 1 week then every 1-2 weeks, Dr. Hightower recommended. All of his patients with hyperhidrosis have had at least one trial of this treatment.

The next option is daily topical treatment with 2.4% glycopyrronium tosylate (Qbrexza) cloths, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for primary axillary hyperhidrosis in patients aged 9 and older. According to the prescribing information, dry mouth was by far the most common treatment-associated adverse effect in clinical trials (24% versus almost 6% among those on vehicle). As for skin reactions, erythema occurred in about 17% of both the intervention and vehicle groups, and burning/stinging occurred in 14% of those on treatment and almost 17% of those on vehicle.

“If they’re not able to get access to the cloths due to [insurance] coverage issues, or they don’t allow them to reach the clinical endpoint desired, then I use an oral daily glycopyrrolate pill,” Dr. Hightower said.

He recommends 1 mg to 6 mg daily of the anticholinergic drug, which has been used off-label for hyperhidrosis for several years. A 2012 study of 31 children with hyperhidrosis, he noted, supported the use of the drug. The retrospective study found that 90% of the patients, at a mean daily dose of 2 mg, experienced improvements, reported as major in 71%. In addition, patients experienced improvement within hours of taking the medication, and benefits disappeared within a day of stopping the medication. In the study, patients were on the treatment for an average of 2.1 years, and 29% experienced side effects, which were dose related; the most common were dry mouth in 26% and dry eyes in 10%.

According to goodrx.com, a month’s supply of 2 mg of the drug costs as little as $13 with a discount or coupon.

The next steps in treatment are procedural interventions such as microwave-based therapies.

Dr. Hightower said that patients should be advised that treatment may take years, and to encourage them to return for follow-up. He suggested this helpful message: “We’re still trying to find the best treatment for you, and we’ll need to see you back in the office.”
 

Hidradenitis suppurativa

Dr. Hightower said that too often, HS goes undiagnosed for a significant period of time, preventing patients from seeing a dermatologist for treatment. Hallmarks of HS include inflammatory nodules, abscesses, and scarring, he said. “It can be disfiguring, painful, embarrassing, and associated with significantly decreased quality of life. Early recognition in terms of making and solidifying the diagnosis is important so we can prevent further worsening of the disease.”

The goal of treatment include preventing scars and unnecessary emergency department visits, and stopping flares from worsening, Dr. Hightower said. For specifics, he pointed to clinical management guidelines released by the United States and Canadian hidradenitis suppurativa foundations in 2019.

Make sure to set individualized treatment goals and understand the impact of treatment on the patient’s interactions with family, school, and peers, he said. And keep in mind that “parent-defined goals may be different from patient-defined goals.”

Dr. Hightower reported no relevant disclosures. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company

A wide variety of medications exists for treating hyperhidrosis, a dermatologist told colleagues, but before prescribing anything to a pediatric patient, he recommended, ask the patient a simple question: “What bothers you the most?”

The answer will provide guidance for developing a step-by-step treatment strategy and help provide the patient “a set of realistic expectations in terms of what the response will look like,” George Hightower, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatologist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

A similar question-based approach will help guide therapy for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), he said.

With regards to hyperhidrosis, Dr. Hightower said that patients most commonly complain that their underarms are too smelly, too sweaty, and red, itchy, or painful. Causes, he said, can include irritation/contact dermatitis, folliculitis, and seborrheic dermatitis, as well as hyperhidrosis or HS.

Primary focal axillary hyperhidrosis is defined as focal, visible, excessive sweating for at least 6 months without an apparent cause plus at least two of the following characteristics: Sweating is bilateral and relatively symmetric, it impairs daily activities, it starts before the age of 25 with at least one episode per week (many patients have it daily), a family history of idiopathic hyperhidrosis is present, and focal sweating does not occur during sleep.

Secondary hyperhidrosis can be linked to other conditions, such as a spinal column injury, Dr. Hightower noted.

The first step on the treatment ladder is topical 20% aluminum chloride, which is available over the counter. This should be applied nightly for 1 week then every 1-2 weeks, Dr. Hightower recommended. All of his patients with hyperhidrosis have had at least one trial of this treatment.

The next option is daily topical treatment with 2.4% glycopyrronium tosylate (Qbrexza) cloths, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for primary axillary hyperhidrosis in patients aged 9 and older. According to the prescribing information, dry mouth was by far the most common treatment-associated adverse effect in clinical trials (24% versus almost 6% among those on vehicle). As for skin reactions, erythema occurred in about 17% of both the intervention and vehicle groups, and burning/stinging occurred in 14% of those on treatment and almost 17% of those on vehicle.

“If they’re not able to get access to the cloths due to [insurance] coverage issues, or they don’t allow them to reach the clinical endpoint desired, then I use an oral daily glycopyrrolate pill,” Dr. Hightower said.

He recommends 1 mg to 6 mg daily of the anticholinergic drug, which has been used off-label for hyperhidrosis for several years. A 2012 study of 31 children with hyperhidrosis, he noted, supported the use of the drug. The retrospective study found that 90% of the patients, at a mean daily dose of 2 mg, experienced improvements, reported as major in 71%. In addition, patients experienced improvement within hours of taking the medication, and benefits disappeared within a day of stopping the medication. In the study, patients were on the treatment for an average of 2.1 years, and 29% experienced side effects, which were dose related; the most common were dry mouth in 26% and dry eyes in 10%.

According to goodrx.com, a month’s supply of 2 mg of the drug costs as little as $13 with a discount or coupon.

The next steps in treatment are procedural interventions such as microwave-based therapies.

Dr. Hightower said that patients should be advised that treatment may take years, and to encourage them to return for follow-up. He suggested this helpful message: “We’re still trying to find the best treatment for you, and we’ll need to see you back in the office.”
 

Hidradenitis suppurativa

Dr. Hightower said that too often, HS goes undiagnosed for a significant period of time, preventing patients from seeing a dermatologist for treatment. Hallmarks of HS include inflammatory nodules, abscesses, and scarring, he said. “It can be disfiguring, painful, embarrassing, and associated with significantly decreased quality of life. Early recognition in terms of making and solidifying the diagnosis is important so we can prevent further worsening of the disease.”

The goal of treatment include preventing scars and unnecessary emergency department visits, and stopping flares from worsening, Dr. Hightower said. For specifics, he pointed to clinical management guidelines released by the United States and Canadian hidradenitis suppurativa foundations in 2019.

Make sure to set individualized treatment goals and understand the impact of treatment on the patient’s interactions with family, school, and peers, he said. And keep in mind that “parent-defined goals may be different from patient-defined goals.”

Dr. Hightower reported no relevant disclosures. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company

A wide variety of medications exists for treating hyperhidrosis, a dermatologist told colleagues, but before prescribing anything to a pediatric patient, he recommended, ask the patient a simple question: “What bothers you the most?”

The answer will provide guidance for developing a step-by-step treatment strategy and help provide the patient “a set of realistic expectations in terms of what the response will look like,” George Hightower, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatologist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

A similar question-based approach will help guide therapy for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), he said.

With regards to hyperhidrosis, Dr. Hightower said that patients most commonly complain that their underarms are too smelly, too sweaty, and red, itchy, or painful. Causes, he said, can include irritation/contact dermatitis, folliculitis, and seborrheic dermatitis, as well as hyperhidrosis or HS.

Primary focal axillary hyperhidrosis is defined as focal, visible, excessive sweating for at least 6 months without an apparent cause plus at least two of the following characteristics: Sweating is bilateral and relatively symmetric, it impairs daily activities, it starts before the age of 25 with at least one episode per week (many patients have it daily), a family history of idiopathic hyperhidrosis is present, and focal sweating does not occur during sleep.

Secondary hyperhidrosis can be linked to other conditions, such as a spinal column injury, Dr. Hightower noted.

The first step on the treatment ladder is topical 20% aluminum chloride, which is available over the counter. This should be applied nightly for 1 week then every 1-2 weeks, Dr. Hightower recommended. All of his patients with hyperhidrosis have had at least one trial of this treatment.

The next option is daily topical treatment with 2.4% glycopyrronium tosylate (Qbrexza) cloths, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for primary axillary hyperhidrosis in patients aged 9 and older. According to the prescribing information, dry mouth was by far the most common treatment-associated adverse effect in clinical trials (24% versus almost 6% among those on vehicle). As for skin reactions, erythema occurred in about 17% of both the intervention and vehicle groups, and burning/stinging occurred in 14% of those on treatment and almost 17% of those on vehicle.

“If they’re not able to get access to the cloths due to [insurance] coverage issues, or they don’t allow them to reach the clinical endpoint desired, then I use an oral daily glycopyrrolate pill,” Dr. Hightower said.

He recommends 1 mg to 6 mg daily of the anticholinergic drug, which has been used off-label for hyperhidrosis for several years. A 2012 study of 31 children with hyperhidrosis, he noted, supported the use of the drug. The retrospective study found that 90% of the patients, at a mean daily dose of 2 mg, experienced improvements, reported as major in 71%. In addition, patients experienced improvement within hours of taking the medication, and benefits disappeared within a day of stopping the medication. In the study, patients were on the treatment for an average of 2.1 years, and 29% experienced side effects, which were dose related; the most common were dry mouth in 26% and dry eyes in 10%.

According to goodrx.com, a month’s supply of 2 mg of the drug costs as little as $13 with a discount or coupon.

The next steps in treatment are procedural interventions such as microwave-based therapies.

Dr. Hightower said that patients should be advised that treatment may take years, and to encourage them to return for follow-up. He suggested this helpful message: “We’re still trying to find the best treatment for you, and we’ll need to see you back in the office.”
 

Hidradenitis suppurativa

Dr. Hightower said that too often, HS goes undiagnosed for a significant period of time, preventing patients from seeing a dermatologist for treatment. Hallmarks of HS include inflammatory nodules, abscesses, and scarring, he said. “It can be disfiguring, painful, embarrassing, and associated with significantly decreased quality of life. Early recognition in terms of making and solidifying the diagnosis is important so we can prevent further worsening of the disease.”

The goal of treatment include preventing scars and unnecessary emergency department visits, and stopping flares from worsening, Dr. Hightower said. For specifics, he pointed to clinical management guidelines released by the United States and Canadian hidradenitis suppurativa foundations in 2019.

Make sure to set individualized treatment goals and understand the impact of treatment on the patient’s interactions with family, school, and peers, he said. And keep in mind that “parent-defined goals may be different from patient-defined goals.”

Dr. Hightower reported no relevant disclosures. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

While they’re extraordinarily expensive, a trio of newly approved medications is providing a variety of effective treatment options for patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), a neurologist told colleagues.

“Patients have a choice of different options with different types of action. It’s good news,” said Sean J. Pittock, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “If you don’t stop the clinical attacks, patients can become very disabled very quickly. These medications have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of having a clinical relapse. If you can stop the relapses, you certainly can eventually stop most – if not all – of the disability accrual.”

Dr. Pittock spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and answered follow-up questions in an interview.
 

Treatment advances for NMOSD

NMOSD, also known as NMO, is a relapsing autoimmune inflammatory disorder that causes recurrent optic neuritis and myelitis. It’s a rare disease, affecting 0.5-10 people per 100,000, mostly women.

Several recent trials have supported the use of the drugs eculizumab (Soliris), satralizumab (Enspryng) and inebilizumab (Uplizna) in NMOSD, Dr. Pittock said, and all have received Food and Drug Administration approval to treat the condition over the past 2 years. Dr. Pittock led the PREVENT trial of eculizumab, which showed a 94% reduction of relapse risk versus placebo.

The newly approved drugs are stunningly expensive. According to Dr. Pittock, eculizumab costs $710,000 a year, while inebilizumab runs $393,000 the first year, then $262,000 a year. Satralizumab is $219,000 the first year, then $190,000 a year. Assistance programs are available, Dr. Pittock said, “and we’ve not had any major problems in terms of initiation.”

The cost of rituximab (Rituxan), which has a history of use as an off-label treatment option, is $18,000 a year and dropping, according to Dr. Pittock. There’s also new research on rituximab: In 2020, a small Japanese trial (n = 38) reported prevention of relapses compared with placebo, but Dr. Pittock cautioned that “the placebo patients seem to have a more benign course or more benign phenotypes” than the intervention group.

“There’s no doubt that rituximab works, but does it work as well as the other medications that have been through more of a robust trial process?” he asked. Keep in mind, he added, that perhaps 20%-50% of patients will relapse on rituximab.

Dr. Pittock advised colleagues to consider factors like patient schedules and compliance when choosing a drug. Satralizumab is self-administered monthly, while inebilizumab and rituximab are infused every 6 months.
 

Progress in anti-MOG disease

The trials in NMOSD should spur studies of the drugs in anti–myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) disease, he said. “I think we’ll see a more rapid move toward phase 3 trials because of the experience with NMO. We will just have to wait and see which medications enter trial.”

Anti-MOG disease, also known as MOG antibody disease (MOGAD) and anti-MOG–associated encephalomyelitis, is caused by anti-MOG antibodies. Optic neuritis is very common, and transverse myelitis can occur.

The condition “actually responds to different drugs than MS and has a different immune pathophysiology,” Dr. Pittock said.

He cautioned colleagues to be aware that “the ability of the antibody to tell you whether or not the patient has the disease is less clear for MOGAD than it is for other diseases. If your patient has a low titer of MOG antibody, and their phenotype really doesn’t look like [MOGAD], you really need to interpret that with significant caution.”

He also highlighted a 2018 report that offers guidance about diagnosis and when MOG-IgC antibody tests are appropriate in CNS demyelinating disease.

Dr. Pittock reported numerous disclosures plus patents issued or pending.

While they’re extraordinarily expensive, a trio of newly approved medications is providing a variety of effective treatment options for patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), a neurologist told colleagues.

“Patients have a choice of different options with different types of action. It’s good news,” said Sean J. Pittock, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “If you don’t stop the clinical attacks, patients can become very disabled very quickly. These medications have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of having a clinical relapse. If you can stop the relapses, you certainly can eventually stop most – if not all – of the disability accrual.”

Dr. Pittock spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and answered follow-up questions in an interview.
 

Treatment advances for NMOSD

NMOSD, also known as NMO, is a relapsing autoimmune inflammatory disorder that causes recurrent optic neuritis and myelitis. It’s a rare disease, affecting 0.5-10 people per 100,000, mostly women.

Several recent trials have supported the use of the drugs eculizumab (Soliris), satralizumab (Enspryng) and inebilizumab (Uplizna) in NMOSD, Dr. Pittock said, and all have received Food and Drug Administration approval to treat the condition over the past 2 years. Dr. Pittock led the PREVENT trial of eculizumab, which showed a 94% reduction of relapse risk versus placebo.

The newly approved drugs are stunningly expensive. According to Dr. Pittock, eculizumab costs $710,000 a year, while inebilizumab runs $393,000 the first year, then $262,000 a year. Satralizumab is $219,000 the first year, then $190,000 a year. Assistance programs are available, Dr. Pittock said, “and we’ve not had any major problems in terms of initiation.”

The cost of rituximab (Rituxan), which has a history of use as an off-label treatment option, is $18,000 a year and dropping, according to Dr. Pittock. There’s also new research on rituximab: In 2020, a small Japanese trial (n = 38) reported prevention of relapses compared with placebo, but Dr. Pittock cautioned that “the placebo patients seem to have a more benign course or more benign phenotypes” than the intervention group.

“There’s no doubt that rituximab works, but does it work as well as the other medications that have been through more of a robust trial process?” he asked. Keep in mind, he added, that perhaps 20%-50% of patients will relapse on rituximab.

Dr. Pittock advised colleagues to consider factors like patient schedules and compliance when choosing a drug. Satralizumab is self-administered monthly, while inebilizumab and rituximab are infused every 6 months.
 

Progress in anti-MOG disease

The trials in NMOSD should spur studies of the drugs in anti–myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) disease, he said. “I think we’ll see a more rapid move toward phase 3 trials because of the experience with NMO. We will just have to wait and see which medications enter trial.”

Anti-MOG disease, also known as MOG antibody disease (MOGAD) and anti-MOG–associated encephalomyelitis, is caused by anti-MOG antibodies. Optic neuritis is very common, and transverse myelitis can occur.

The condition “actually responds to different drugs than MS and has a different immune pathophysiology,” Dr. Pittock said.

He cautioned colleagues to be aware that “the ability of the antibody to tell you whether or not the patient has the disease is less clear for MOGAD than it is for other diseases. If your patient has a low titer of MOG antibody, and their phenotype really doesn’t look like [MOGAD], you really need to interpret that with significant caution.”

He also highlighted a 2018 report that offers guidance about diagnosis and when MOG-IgC antibody tests are appropriate in CNS demyelinating disease.

Dr. Pittock reported numerous disclosures plus patents issued or pending.

While they’re extraordinarily expensive, a trio of newly approved medications is providing a variety of effective treatment options for patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), a neurologist told colleagues.

“Patients have a choice of different options with different types of action. It’s good news,” said Sean J. Pittock, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “If you don’t stop the clinical attacks, patients can become very disabled very quickly. These medications have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of having a clinical relapse. If you can stop the relapses, you certainly can eventually stop most – if not all – of the disability accrual.”

Dr. Pittock spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and answered follow-up questions in an interview.
 

Treatment advances for NMOSD

NMOSD, also known as NMO, is a relapsing autoimmune inflammatory disorder that causes recurrent optic neuritis and myelitis. It’s a rare disease, affecting 0.5-10 people per 100,000, mostly women.

Several recent trials have supported the use of the drugs eculizumab (Soliris), satralizumab (Enspryng) and inebilizumab (Uplizna) in NMOSD, Dr. Pittock said, and all have received Food and Drug Administration approval to treat the condition over the past 2 years. Dr. Pittock led the PREVENT trial of eculizumab, which showed a 94% reduction of relapse risk versus placebo.

The newly approved drugs are stunningly expensive. According to Dr. Pittock, eculizumab costs $710,000 a year, while inebilizumab runs $393,000 the first year, then $262,000 a year. Satralizumab is $219,000 the first year, then $190,000 a year. Assistance programs are available, Dr. Pittock said, “and we’ve not had any major problems in terms of initiation.”

The cost of rituximab (Rituxan), which has a history of use as an off-label treatment option, is $18,000 a year and dropping, according to Dr. Pittock. There’s also new research on rituximab: In 2020, a small Japanese trial (n = 38) reported prevention of relapses compared with placebo, but Dr. Pittock cautioned that “the placebo patients seem to have a more benign course or more benign phenotypes” than the intervention group.

“There’s no doubt that rituximab works, but does it work as well as the other medications that have been through more of a robust trial process?” he asked. Keep in mind, he added, that perhaps 20%-50% of patients will relapse on rituximab.

Dr. Pittock advised colleagues to consider factors like patient schedules and compliance when choosing a drug. Satralizumab is self-administered monthly, while inebilizumab and rituximab are infused every 6 months.
 

Progress in anti-MOG disease

The trials in NMOSD should spur studies of the drugs in anti–myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) disease, he said. “I think we’ll see a more rapid move toward phase 3 trials because of the experience with NMO. We will just have to wait and see which medications enter trial.”

Anti-MOG disease, also known as MOG antibody disease (MOGAD) and anti-MOG–associated encephalomyelitis, is caused by anti-MOG antibodies. Optic neuritis is very common, and transverse myelitis can occur.

The condition “actually responds to different drugs than MS and has a different immune pathophysiology,” Dr. Pittock said.

He cautioned colleagues to be aware that “the ability of the antibody to tell you whether or not the patient has the disease is less clear for MOGAD than it is for other diseases. If your patient has a low titer of MOG antibody, and their phenotype really doesn’t look like [MOGAD], you really need to interpret that with significant caution.”

He also highlighted a 2018 report that offers guidance about diagnosis and when MOG-IgC antibody tests are appropriate in CNS demyelinating disease.

Dr. Pittock reported numerous disclosures plus patents issued or pending.

Each year, roughly 1 in 60 adult patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) aged 65 years and under is hospitalized with urinary or kidney infections, a new study suggests. That’s more than quadruple the rate in a control cohort. Other types of infections affected patients with MS at a higher rate too.

“The relative risk of all types of inpatient infections and most types of outpatient infections was significantly elevated among the patients with MS. While we expected there to be increased relative risk of urinary or kidney and respiratory infections, we also found higher relative risk of viral, fungal, skin, and opportunistic infections,” said study lead author Riley Bove, MD, an assistant professor at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, who presented the findings at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. She answered follow-up questions in an interview.

A common and treatable condition

“Bladder dysfunction may be present in over 80% of persons in MS and can be a significant source of decreased function and quality of life in addition to increased health care costs and morbidity,” neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “It is common among persons with MS to have bladders that do not empty urine completely. This can predispose them to bladder and kidney infections. Also, some patients may try to self-manage bladder symptoms by restricting fluids, and this can predispose them to infection as well.”

Dr. Giesser, who was asked to comment on the present research, advised neurologists to bring up urinary disorders themselves instead of waiting for patients to mention them. “Patients are often embarrassed to start a discussion about genitourinary dysfunction with their neurologists but will be very appreciative of the opportunity for it to be investigated and treated,” she said. “Neurologists should make sure that this area of neurologic function is addressed in the routine management of their patients with MS because bladder dysfunction, morbidity, and complications associated with it are treatable and preventable.”

For her part, Dr. Bove recommended “early and effective identification of risk, appropriate referral to first-line interventions such as pelvic floor physical therapy and patient education, and early referral to urologists skilled in treating neurogenic bladder. Further, it is important to monitor side effects of medications to ensure there are no unrecognized immune deficits.”

She also cautioned that “common symptoms of [urinary tract infections] in people with MS include symptoms that are also prevalent in neurogenic bladder: urgency, incontinence, and frequency. It is possible that having baseline lower urinary tract symptoms could mask the recognition of a urinary infection, resulting in delayed recognition and treatment of the infections.”

EMD Serono funded the study. Dr. Bove is funded by the National MS Society’s Harry Weaver Award. She has received research support from Biogen and Roche Genentech and consulting/advisory board fees from Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis. Dr. Giesser reported no disclosures.

Each year, roughly 1 in 60 adult patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) aged 65 years and under is hospitalized with urinary or kidney infections, a new study suggests. That’s more than quadruple the rate in a control cohort. Other types of infections affected patients with MS at a higher rate too.

“The relative risk of all types of inpatient infections and most types of outpatient infections was significantly elevated among the patients with MS. While we expected there to be increased relative risk of urinary or kidney and respiratory infections, we also found higher relative risk of viral, fungal, skin, and opportunistic infections,” said study lead author Riley Bove, MD, an assistant professor at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, who presented the findings at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. She answered follow-up questions in an interview.

A common and treatable condition

“Bladder dysfunction may be present in over 80% of persons in MS and can be a significant source of decreased function and quality of life in addition to increased health care costs and morbidity,” neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “It is common among persons with MS to have bladders that do not empty urine completely. This can predispose them to bladder and kidney infections. Also, some patients may try to self-manage bladder symptoms by restricting fluids, and this can predispose them to infection as well.”

Dr. Giesser, who was asked to comment on the present research, advised neurologists to bring up urinary disorders themselves instead of waiting for patients to mention them. “Patients are often embarrassed to start a discussion about genitourinary dysfunction with their neurologists but will be very appreciative of the opportunity for it to be investigated and treated,” she said. “Neurologists should make sure that this area of neurologic function is addressed in the routine management of their patients with MS because bladder dysfunction, morbidity, and complications associated with it are treatable and preventable.”

For her part, Dr. Bove recommended “early and effective identification of risk, appropriate referral to first-line interventions such as pelvic floor physical therapy and patient education, and early referral to urologists skilled in treating neurogenic bladder. Further, it is important to monitor side effects of medications to ensure there are no unrecognized immune deficits.”

She also cautioned that “common symptoms of [urinary tract infections] in people with MS include symptoms that are also prevalent in neurogenic bladder: urgency, incontinence, and frequency. It is possible that having baseline lower urinary tract symptoms could mask the recognition of a urinary infection, resulting in delayed recognition and treatment of the infections.”

EMD Serono funded the study. Dr. Bove is funded by the National MS Society’s Harry Weaver Award. She has received research support from Biogen and Roche Genentech and consulting/advisory board fees from Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis. Dr. Giesser reported no disclosures.

Each year, roughly 1 in 60 adult patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) aged 65 years and under is hospitalized with urinary or kidney infections, a new study suggests. That’s more than quadruple the rate in a control cohort. Other types of infections affected patients with MS at a higher rate too.

“The relative risk of all types of inpatient infections and most types of outpatient infections was significantly elevated among the patients with MS. While we expected there to be increased relative risk of urinary or kidney and respiratory infections, we also found higher relative risk of viral, fungal, skin, and opportunistic infections,” said study lead author Riley Bove, MD, an assistant professor at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, who presented the findings at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. She answered follow-up questions in an interview.

A common and treatable condition

“Bladder dysfunction may be present in over 80% of persons in MS and can be a significant source of decreased function and quality of life in addition to increased health care costs and morbidity,” neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “It is common among persons with MS to have bladders that do not empty urine completely. This can predispose them to bladder and kidney infections. Also, some patients may try to self-manage bladder symptoms by restricting fluids, and this can predispose them to infection as well.”

Dr. Giesser, who was asked to comment on the present research, advised neurologists to bring up urinary disorders themselves instead of waiting for patients to mention them. “Patients are often embarrassed to start a discussion about genitourinary dysfunction with their neurologists but will be very appreciative of the opportunity for it to be investigated and treated,” she said. “Neurologists should make sure that this area of neurologic function is addressed in the routine management of their patients with MS because bladder dysfunction, morbidity, and complications associated with it are treatable and preventable.”

For her part, Dr. Bove recommended “early and effective identification of risk, appropriate referral to first-line interventions such as pelvic floor physical therapy and patient education, and early referral to urologists skilled in treating neurogenic bladder. Further, it is important to monitor side effects of medications to ensure there are no unrecognized immune deficits.”

She also cautioned that “common symptoms of [urinary tract infections] in people with MS include symptoms that are also prevalent in neurogenic bladder: urgency, incontinence, and frequency. It is possible that having baseline lower urinary tract symptoms could mask the recognition of a urinary infection, resulting in delayed recognition and treatment of the infections.”

EMD Serono funded the study. Dr. Bove is funded by the National MS Society’s Harry Weaver Award. She has received research support from Biogen and Roche Genentech and consulting/advisory board fees from Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis. Dr. Giesser reported no disclosures.

Like other people, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who become infected with COVID-19 face worse outcomes if they’re older and more disabled, a biostatistician told neurologists. With the exception of anti-CD20s, registries also suggest that disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) don’t cause higher degrees of severity.

“It’s good news since it’s important for patients to stay on these treatments,” said Amber Salter, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, in a follow-up interview following her presentation at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr. Salter reported on the findings of several MS/COVID-19 registries from around the world, including the COViMS Registry, which is supported by the Consortium of MS Centers, the MS Society of Canada, and the National MS Society. It tracks patients who developed COVID-19 while also having MS, neuromyelitis optica, or MOG antibody disease.

The registry began collecting data in April 2020 and is ongoing. As of Jan. 29, 2021, 2,059 patients had been tracked; 85% of cases were confirmed by laboratory tests. Nearly all patients (97%) were from the United States, with about 21% from New York state. Nearly 76% were female, the average age was 48. About 70% were non-Hispanic White, 18% were African American; 83% had relapsing remitting MS, and 17% had progressive MS.

“We found that 11.5% of MS patients were reported being hospitalized, while 4.2% were admitted to the ICU or ventilated and 3% had died,” Dr. Salter said. Not surprisingly, the death rate was highest (21%) in patients aged 75 years or older, compared with 11% of those aged 65-74 years. Those with more severe cases – those who were nonambulatory – had a death rate of 18%, compared with 0.6% of those who were fully ambulatory and 4% of those who walked with assistance.

“A lot of the risks [for COVID-19 severity] we see in the general population are risks in the MS population,” Dr. Salter said.

Dr. Salter also summarized the results of other international registries. After adjustment, a registry in Italy linked the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab (odds ratio, 2.37, P = .015) and recent use of methylprednisolone (OR, 5.2; P = .001) to more severe courses of COVID-19, compared with other DMTs. And a global data-sharing project linked anti-CD20s to more severe outcomes, compared with other DMTs (hospitalization, adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.49; ICU admission, aPR, 2.55; and ventilation, aPR, 3.05).

In an interview, neurologist Lauren Gluck, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, both in New York, cautioned that prescribing anti-CD20s now “requires a more complex informed consent process with patients and outlining of risk as well as strategies to minimize contracting the infection.”

Moving forward, she advised colleagues to “keep treating MS with DMTs. Preventing MS attacks will help keep patients out of the hospital and limit need for high-dose steroids.” And she cautioned that “avoiding action due to inaccurate fear of DMTs and COVID-19 may put your patients at unnecessary risk of relapses and accumulated disability. Educate your patients on the reality of the COVID19 pandemic, their personal risk of exposure, and strategies to minimize their risk.”

Fortunately, vaccinations offer protection against COVID-19 in patients with MS, although patients are clearly concerned about potential risks. “A frequent concern is whether the vaccines are safe for MS patients in general and if they could incite MS relapses,” neurologist Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, said in an interview. “The American Academy of Neurology guidelines have not found a connection between vaccination and MS relapses. Having COVID-19 infection can trigger MS relapses, so clearly the benefit from the vaccine outweighs any potential risks. Obviously, it is not advisable to take any vaccine during an active relapse, but vaccines are safe otherwise when given during remission.”

Dr. Salter and Dr. Gluck reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Abboud reports consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme.


 

Like other people, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who become infected with COVID-19 face worse outcomes if they’re older and more disabled, a biostatistician told neurologists. With the exception of anti-CD20s, registries also suggest that disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) don’t cause higher degrees of severity.

“It’s good news since it’s important for patients to stay on these treatments,” said Amber Salter, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, in a follow-up interview following her presentation at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr. Salter reported on the findings of several MS/COVID-19 registries from around the world, including the COViMS Registry, which is supported by the Consortium of MS Centers, the MS Society of Canada, and the National MS Society. It tracks patients who developed COVID-19 while also having MS, neuromyelitis optica, or MOG antibody disease.

The registry began collecting data in April 2020 and is ongoing. As of Jan. 29, 2021, 2,059 patients had been tracked; 85% of cases were confirmed by laboratory tests. Nearly all patients (97%) were from the United States, with about 21% from New York state. Nearly 76% were female, the average age was 48. About 70% were non-Hispanic White, 18% were African American; 83% had relapsing remitting MS, and 17% had progressive MS.

“We found that 11.5% of MS patients were reported being hospitalized, while 4.2% were admitted to the ICU or ventilated and 3% had died,” Dr. Salter said. Not surprisingly, the death rate was highest (21%) in patients aged 75 years or older, compared with 11% of those aged 65-74 years. Those with more severe cases – those who were nonambulatory – had a death rate of 18%, compared with 0.6% of those who were fully ambulatory and 4% of those who walked with assistance.

“A lot of the risks [for COVID-19 severity] we see in the general population are risks in the MS population,” Dr. Salter said.

Dr. Salter also summarized the results of other international registries. After adjustment, a registry in Italy linked the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab (odds ratio, 2.37, P = .015) and recent use of methylprednisolone (OR, 5.2; P = .001) to more severe courses of COVID-19, compared with other DMTs. And a global data-sharing project linked anti-CD20s to more severe outcomes, compared with other DMTs (hospitalization, adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.49; ICU admission, aPR, 2.55; and ventilation, aPR, 3.05).

In an interview, neurologist Lauren Gluck, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, both in New York, cautioned that prescribing anti-CD20s now “requires a more complex informed consent process with patients and outlining of risk as well as strategies to minimize contracting the infection.”

Moving forward, she advised colleagues to “keep treating MS with DMTs. Preventing MS attacks will help keep patients out of the hospital and limit need for high-dose steroids.” And she cautioned that “avoiding action due to inaccurate fear of DMTs and COVID-19 may put your patients at unnecessary risk of relapses and accumulated disability. Educate your patients on the reality of the COVID19 pandemic, their personal risk of exposure, and strategies to minimize their risk.”

Fortunately, vaccinations offer protection against COVID-19 in patients with MS, although patients are clearly concerned about potential risks. “A frequent concern is whether the vaccines are safe for MS patients in general and if they could incite MS relapses,” neurologist Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, said in an interview. “The American Academy of Neurology guidelines have not found a connection between vaccination and MS relapses. Having COVID-19 infection can trigger MS relapses, so clearly the benefit from the vaccine outweighs any potential risks. Obviously, it is not advisable to take any vaccine during an active relapse, but vaccines are safe otherwise when given during remission.”

Dr. Salter and Dr. Gluck reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Abboud reports consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme.


 

Like other people, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who become infected with COVID-19 face worse outcomes if they’re older and more disabled, a biostatistician told neurologists. With the exception of anti-CD20s, registries also suggest that disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) don’t cause higher degrees of severity.

“It’s good news since it’s important for patients to stay on these treatments,” said Amber Salter, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, in a follow-up interview following her presentation at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr. Salter reported on the findings of several MS/COVID-19 registries from around the world, including the COViMS Registry, which is supported by the Consortium of MS Centers, the MS Society of Canada, and the National MS Society. It tracks patients who developed COVID-19 while also having MS, neuromyelitis optica, or MOG antibody disease.

The registry began collecting data in April 2020 and is ongoing. As of Jan. 29, 2021, 2,059 patients had been tracked; 85% of cases were confirmed by laboratory tests. Nearly all patients (97%) were from the United States, with about 21% from New York state. Nearly 76% were female, the average age was 48. About 70% were non-Hispanic White, 18% were African American; 83% had relapsing remitting MS, and 17% had progressive MS.

“We found that 11.5% of MS patients were reported being hospitalized, while 4.2% were admitted to the ICU or ventilated and 3% had died,” Dr. Salter said. Not surprisingly, the death rate was highest (21%) in patients aged 75 years or older, compared with 11% of those aged 65-74 years. Those with more severe cases – those who were nonambulatory – had a death rate of 18%, compared with 0.6% of those who were fully ambulatory and 4% of those who walked with assistance.

“A lot of the risks [for COVID-19 severity] we see in the general population are risks in the MS population,” Dr. Salter said.

Dr. Salter also summarized the results of other international registries. After adjustment, a registry in Italy linked the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab (odds ratio, 2.37, P = .015) and recent use of methylprednisolone (OR, 5.2; P = .001) to more severe courses of COVID-19, compared with other DMTs. And a global data-sharing project linked anti-CD20s to more severe outcomes, compared with other DMTs (hospitalization, adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.49; ICU admission, aPR, 2.55; and ventilation, aPR, 3.05).

In an interview, neurologist Lauren Gluck, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, both in New York, cautioned that prescribing anti-CD20s now “requires a more complex informed consent process with patients and outlining of risk as well as strategies to minimize contracting the infection.”

Moving forward, she advised colleagues to “keep treating MS with DMTs. Preventing MS attacks will help keep patients out of the hospital and limit need for high-dose steroids.” And she cautioned that “avoiding action due to inaccurate fear of DMTs and COVID-19 may put your patients at unnecessary risk of relapses and accumulated disability. Educate your patients on the reality of the COVID19 pandemic, their personal risk of exposure, and strategies to minimize their risk.”

Fortunately, vaccinations offer protection against COVID-19 in patients with MS, although patients are clearly concerned about potential risks. “A frequent concern is whether the vaccines are safe for MS patients in general and if they could incite MS relapses,” neurologist Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, said in an interview. “The American Academy of Neurology guidelines have not found a connection between vaccination and MS relapses. Having COVID-19 infection can trigger MS relapses, so clearly the benefit from the vaccine outweighs any potential risks. Obviously, it is not advisable to take any vaccine during an active relapse, but vaccines are safe otherwise when given during remission.”

Dr. Salter and Dr. Gluck reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Abboud reports consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme.


 

COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, but those who are on disease-modifying therapy (DMT) – or about to begin it – should be cautious about the timing of their shots.

“There’s no reason to think any of the three authorized vaccines are in any way more dangerous in people with MS, or in the context of MS DMTs. It’s only a question of whether certain DMTs will influence the degree of benefit you get from the vaccine,” said Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center for Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, chief of the multiple sclerosis division, and Melissa and Paul Anderson President’s Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He spoke at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, and he also answered questions in a follow-up interview.

“The merits of being protected by the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh any risks that one would consider associated with vaccines and individuals with MS,” said Dr. Bar-Or. “And there’s reason to think that the RNA vaccines may even be safer than prior, more traditional vaccines. They are nonlive, noninactivated vaccines, and there is no risk in terms of interacting with MS.”

Where do DMTs fit in? In an interview, Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, said there’s reason for caution regarding DMTs that deplete immune cells or entrap them in the lymph nodes. “What is not clearly known is the effect of the fumarates, which do not act through cell depletion but can occasionally deplete immune cells as a side effect. These likely have no negative effect on vaccine efficacy in patients with normal immune cell count but may have a negative effect in those with significant immune cell reduction. Luckily, significant immune cell reduction is rare in patients taking fumarates.”

In addition, he said, “interferons and natalizumab are generally thought to have no impact on vaccine efficacy while glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide are thought to have no or only little impact on vaccines. Most of these concepts are derived from studies of non–COVID-19 vaccines.”

Dr. Bar-Or highlighted specific DMTs. Teriflunomide (Aubagio) “has a relatively mild effect on the immune system and is not thought to be particularly immune suppressive or deplete immune cells,” Dr. Bar-Or said, as shown in a 2015 study he led (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015 Feb 12;2[2]:e70). In contrast, a 2020 study, also led by Dr. Bar-Or, showed that nonlive vaccinations given after treatment with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) – an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody – are “attenuated, compared with untreated or interferon-beta–treated patients, but they can still be expected to be protective.”

Dr. Bar-Or pointed to National MS Society guidelines about the timing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for patients with MS who are on DMT. In patients with stable MS, the society recommends no adjustments in timing for patients starting or remaining on several DMTs. The list includes teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), and dimethyl fumarate, among others.

Patients shouldn’t start fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), or ozanimod (Zeposia) until 4 weeks or more after their second vaccine dose, the guidelines suggest. Vaccine doses are recommended 3-5 days after the final dose of high-dose steroids. And there are more complicated recommendations regarding a number of other DMTs – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (Kesimpta), alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), cladribine (Mavenclad), and rituximab (Rituxan).

Dr. Bar-Or cautioned that the guidelines are an imperfect “first pass” and are being updated.

He added that the guidelines are not set in stone: “Scheduling is not always possible in terms of adjusting the vaccine timing. Patients in general are recommended to take the vaccine when it becomes available, as it may be more important for them to get the vaccine than to try to time the vaccine relative to the DMT.”

Guidance regarding the newly authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected soon, said neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., in an interview. As for her advice to patients, she said that, “in general, I am recommending that patients get [vaccinated] as soon as it is available to them with adjustment of timing of some DMTs as may be appropriate.”

Dr. Bar-Or has received consulting fees and/or grant support from – or participated as a speaker in events sponsored by – Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, Bristol-Myer Squibb/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He also receives research funding from various organizations and agencies. Dr. Abboud reported receiving consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Giesser reports no disclosures.
 

COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, but those who are on disease-modifying therapy (DMT) – or about to begin it – should be cautious about the timing of their shots.

“There’s no reason to think any of the three authorized vaccines are in any way more dangerous in people with MS, or in the context of MS DMTs. It’s only a question of whether certain DMTs will influence the degree of benefit you get from the vaccine,” said Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center for Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, chief of the multiple sclerosis division, and Melissa and Paul Anderson President’s Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He spoke at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, and he also answered questions in a follow-up interview.

“The merits of being protected by the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh any risks that one would consider associated with vaccines and individuals with MS,” said Dr. Bar-Or. “And there’s reason to think that the RNA vaccines may even be safer than prior, more traditional vaccines. They are nonlive, noninactivated vaccines, and there is no risk in terms of interacting with MS.”

Where do DMTs fit in? In an interview, Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, said there’s reason for caution regarding DMTs that deplete immune cells or entrap them in the lymph nodes. “What is not clearly known is the effect of the fumarates, which do not act through cell depletion but can occasionally deplete immune cells as a side effect. These likely have no negative effect on vaccine efficacy in patients with normal immune cell count but may have a negative effect in those with significant immune cell reduction. Luckily, significant immune cell reduction is rare in patients taking fumarates.”

In addition, he said, “interferons and natalizumab are generally thought to have no impact on vaccine efficacy while glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide are thought to have no or only little impact on vaccines. Most of these concepts are derived from studies of non–COVID-19 vaccines.”

Dr. Bar-Or highlighted specific DMTs. Teriflunomide (Aubagio) “has a relatively mild effect on the immune system and is not thought to be particularly immune suppressive or deplete immune cells,” Dr. Bar-Or said, as shown in a 2015 study he led (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015 Feb 12;2[2]:e70). In contrast, a 2020 study, also led by Dr. Bar-Or, showed that nonlive vaccinations given after treatment with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) – an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody – are “attenuated, compared with untreated or interferon-beta–treated patients, but they can still be expected to be protective.”

Dr. Bar-Or pointed to National MS Society guidelines about the timing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for patients with MS who are on DMT. In patients with stable MS, the society recommends no adjustments in timing for patients starting or remaining on several DMTs. The list includes teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), and dimethyl fumarate, among others.

Patients shouldn’t start fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), or ozanimod (Zeposia) until 4 weeks or more after their second vaccine dose, the guidelines suggest. Vaccine doses are recommended 3-5 days after the final dose of high-dose steroids. And there are more complicated recommendations regarding a number of other DMTs – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (Kesimpta), alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), cladribine (Mavenclad), and rituximab (Rituxan).

Dr. Bar-Or cautioned that the guidelines are an imperfect “first pass” and are being updated.

He added that the guidelines are not set in stone: “Scheduling is not always possible in terms of adjusting the vaccine timing. Patients in general are recommended to take the vaccine when it becomes available, as it may be more important for them to get the vaccine than to try to time the vaccine relative to the DMT.”

Guidance regarding the newly authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected soon, said neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., in an interview. As for her advice to patients, she said that, “in general, I am recommending that patients get [vaccinated] as soon as it is available to them with adjustment of timing of some DMTs as may be appropriate.”

Dr. Bar-Or has received consulting fees and/or grant support from – or participated as a speaker in events sponsored by – Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, Bristol-Myer Squibb/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He also receives research funding from various organizations and agencies. Dr. Abboud reported receiving consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Giesser reports no disclosures.
 

COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, but those who are on disease-modifying therapy (DMT) – or about to begin it – should be cautious about the timing of their shots.

“There’s no reason to think any of the three authorized vaccines are in any way more dangerous in people with MS, or in the context of MS DMTs. It’s only a question of whether certain DMTs will influence the degree of benefit you get from the vaccine,” said Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center for Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, chief of the multiple sclerosis division, and Melissa and Paul Anderson President’s Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He spoke at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, and he also answered questions in a follow-up interview.

“The merits of being protected by the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh any risks that one would consider associated with vaccines and individuals with MS,” said Dr. Bar-Or. “And there’s reason to think that the RNA vaccines may even be safer than prior, more traditional vaccines. They are nonlive, noninactivated vaccines, and there is no risk in terms of interacting with MS.”

Where do DMTs fit in? In an interview, Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, said there’s reason for caution regarding DMTs that deplete immune cells or entrap them in the lymph nodes. “What is not clearly known is the effect of the fumarates, which do not act through cell depletion but can occasionally deplete immune cells as a side effect. These likely have no negative effect on vaccine efficacy in patients with normal immune cell count but may have a negative effect in those with significant immune cell reduction. Luckily, significant immune cell reduction is rare in patients taking fumarates.”

In addition, he said, “interferons and natalizumab are generally thought to have no impact on vaccine efficacy while glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide are thought to have no or only little impact on vaccines. Most of these concepts are derived from studies of non–COVID-19 vaccines.”

Dr. Bar-Or highlighted specific DMTs. Teriflunomide (Aubagio) “has a relatively mild effect on the immune system and is not thought to be particularly immune suppressive or deplete immune cells,” Dr. Bar-Or said, as shown in a 2015 study he led (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015 Feb 12;2[2]:e70). In contrast, a 2020 study, also led by Dr. Bar-Or, showed that nonlive vaccinations given after treatment with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) – an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody – are “attenuated, compared with untreated or interferon-beta–treated patients, but they can still be expected to be protective.”

Dr. Bar-Or pointed to National MS Society guidelines about the timing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for patients with MS who are on DMT. In patients with stable MS, the society recommends no adjustments in timing for patients starting or remaining on several DMTs. The list includes teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), and dimethyl fumarate, among others.

Patients shouldn’t start fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), or ozanimod (Zeposia) until 4 weeks or more after their second vaccine dose, the guidelines suggest. Vaccine doses are recommended 3-5 days after the final dose of high-dose steroids. And there are more complicated recommendations regarding a number of other DMTs – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (Kesimpta), alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), cladribine (Mavenclad), and rituximab (Rituxan).

Dr. Bar-Or cautioned that the guidelines are an imperfect “first pass” and are being updated.

He added that the guidelines are not set in stone: “Scheduling is not always possible in terms of adjusting the vaccine timing. Patients in general are recommended to take the vaccine when it becomes available, as it may be more important for them to get the vaccine than to try to time the vaccine relative to the DMT.”

Guidance regarding the newly authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected soon, said neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., in an interview. As for her advice to patients, she said that, “in general, I am recommending that patients get [vaccinated] as soon as it is available to them with adjustment of timing of some DMTs as may be appropriate.”

Dr. Bar-Or has received consulting fees and/or grant support from – or participated as a speaker in events sponsored by – Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, Bristol-Myer Squibb/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He also receives research funding from various organizations and agencies. Dr. Abboud reported receiving consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Giesser reports no disclosures.
 

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

While some guidelines support serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as treatments for back pain, a new systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research found no firm evidence of a benefit. Adverse effects, however, are common.

“Our review shows that, although these medicines are effective, the effect is small and unlikely to be considered clinically important by most patients,” wrote the authors of the review, which appeared Jan. 20 in the BMJ. “Our review also showed that about two-thirds of patients using SNRIs experience adverse events.”

However, the report hinted that certain classes of antidepressants may provide significant relief in knee OA and sciatica.

According to a 2018 review, 10 of 15 clinical guidelines from around the world – including those of the American College of Physicians – recommended antidepressants as treatments for low back pain, and 2 advised against them. “Evidence supporting the use of antidepressants is, however, uncertain,” wrote the authors of the new review, led by Giovanni E. Ferreira, PhD, of the University of Sydney. “Systematic reviews of antidepressants for back pain and osteoarthritis have either not included several published trials, considered only one type of antidepressant (e.g., duloxetine), or failed to assess the certainty of evidence.”

For the new review, the authors analyzed 33 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 5,318 subjects. Both published data and unpublished data from clinical trial registries were included.
 

Back pain trials

A total of 19 trials examined back pain, mostly lower back pain (16 trials), and none lasted more than 1 year. Fifteen examined SNRIs while others looked at other kinds of antidepressants.

The researchers found that “the effect of SNRIs was small [on back pain] and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance. ... Evidence ranging from low to very low certainty showed no benefit of a range of antidepressant classes, including SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], tetracyclic antidepressants, SARIs [serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors], and NDRIs [norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors] for pain and disability across follow-ups of 2 weeks or less, 3-13 weeks, and 3-12 months.”
 

Sciatica trials

Six trials examined antidepressants as treatments for sciatica. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that SNRIs reduced pain at up to 2 weeks (1 trial, n = 50) but not at 3-13 weeks (3 trials, n = 96). The results of trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the opposite: low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggested the drugs didn’t reduce pain at up to 2 weeks (2 trials, n = 94) but did at 3-13 weeks (2 trials, n = 114) and 3-12 months (1 trial, n = 60).

“All sciatica trials were small, had imprecise estimates, and were at high risk of bias, which reduced the certainty of evidence to low and very low,” the authors cautioned. “This level of uncertainty indicates that the true estimate of effect of TCAs and SNRIs for sciatica is likely to be substantially different from what we estimated in our review.”
 

Knee OA trials

Eight trials examined SNRIs in knee OA. Moderate-certainty evidence linked the drugs to less pain at up to 2 weeks (four trials, n = 1,328) and low-certainty evidence linked them to less pain at 3-13 weeks (eight trials, n = 1,941). Low-certainty evidence also linked the drugs to less disability at 2 weeks or less (one trial, n = 353) and 3-13 weeks (seven trials, n = 1,810).

In knee OA, “the effect of SNRIs was small and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance,” the researchers wrote. “However, the lower limit of the confidence interval did contain clinically important effects for pain, but not for disability.”
 

Antidepressant side effects in trials

A total of 21 trials (n = 4,107) looked at side effects when antidepressants were studied as treatments for back pain and OA. Low-certainty evidence in 13 SNRI trials (n = 3,447) suggested a higher risk of any adverse events in antidepressant versus placebo (62.5% vs. 49.7%; relative risk, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.30), but there was no significantly higher risk of serious adverse events in 10 SNRI trials with 3,309 subjects (1.6% vs. 1.3%; RR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.61-2.07).

As for adverse effects of non-SNRIs, “the number of studies evaluating the safety of other antidepressant classes was small, trials were underpowered to detect harm, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low,” the researchers wrote.

Going forward, the authors said that “large, definitive randomized trials that are free of industry ties are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties about the efficacy of antidepressants for sciatica and osteoarthritis highlighted by this review.”
 

‘Largely ineffective’ drug treatments

In an accompanying commentary, Martin Underwood, of the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, and Colin Tysall, of the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, also in Coventry, noted that “drug treatments are largely ineffective for back pain and osteoarthritis and have the potential for serious harm. We need to work harder to help people with these disorders to live better with their pain without recourse to the prescription pad.”

However, they noted that SNRIs may still be helpful for patients with back pain or OA. “Absolute effect sizes for physical treatments for low-back pain are of similar magnitudes to those reported here and translate into numbers needed to treat of between five and nine. If the same were true for SNRIs, some people might choose to a try that option for a 1 in 10 chance of a worthwhile reduction in pain after 3 months. They can easily stop if treatment is ineffective or does not suit them.”

The research received no specific funding. The review authors disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline (postgraduate scholarship), Pfizer (investigational product for two trials), and Flexeze (provision of heat wraps for a trial). Mr. Underwood reported being a director and shareholder of Clinvivo. Mr. Tysall reported no disclosures.

While some guidelines support serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as treatments for back pain, a new systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research found no firm evidence of a benefit. Adverse effects, however, are common.

“Our review shows that, although these medicines are effective, the effect is small and unlikely to be considered clinically important by most patients,” wrote the authors of the review, which appeared Jan. 20 in the BMJ. “Our review also showed that about two-thirds of patients using SNRIs experience adverse events.”

However, the report hinted that certain classes of antidepressants may provide significant relief in knee OA and sciatica.

According to a 2018 review, 10 of 15 clinical guidelines from around the world – including those of the American College of Physicians – recommended antidepressants as treatments for low back pain, and 2 advised against them. “Evidence supporting the use of antidepressants is, however, uncertain,” wrote the authors of the new review, led by Giovanni E. Ferreira, PhD, of the University of Sydney. “Systematic reviews of antidepressants for back pain and osteoarthritis have either not included several published trials, considered only one type of antidepressant (e.g., duloxetine), or failed to assess the certainty of evidence.”

For the new review, the authors analyzed 33 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 5,318 subjects. Both published data and unpublished data from clinical trial registries were included.
 

Back pain trials

A total of 19 trials examined back pain, mostly lower back pain (16 trials), and none lasted more than 1 year. Fifteen examined SNRIs while others looked at other kinds of antidepressants.

The researchers found that “the effect of SNRIs was small [on back pain] and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance. ... Evidence ranging from low to very low certainty showed no benefit of a range of antidepressant classes, including SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], tetracyclic antidepressants, SARIs [serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors], and NDRIs [norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors] for pain and disability across follow-ups of 2 weeks or less, 3-13 weeks, and 3-12 months.”
 

Sciatica trials

Six trials examined antidepressants as treatments for sciatica. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that SNRIs reduced pain at up to 2 weeks (1 trial, n = 50) but not at 3-13 weeks (3 trials, n = 96). The results of trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the opposite: low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggested the drugs didn’t reduce pain at up to 2 weeks (2 trials, n = 94) but did at 3-13 weeks (2 trials, n = 114) and 3-12 months (1 trial, n = 60).

“All sciatica trials were small, had imprecise estimates, and were at high risk of bias, which reduced the certainty of evidence to low and very low,” the authors cautioned. “This level of uncertainty indicates that the true estimate of effect of TCAs and SNRIs for sciatica is likely to be substantially different from what we estimated in our review.”
 

Knee OA trials

Eight trials examined SNRIs in knee OA. Moderate-certainty evidence linked the drugs to less pain at up to 2 weeks (four trials, n = 1,328) and low-certainty evidence linked them to less pain at 3-13 weeks (eight trials, n = 1,941). Low-certainty evidence also linked the drugs to less disability at 2 weeks or less (one trial, n = 353) and 3-13 weeks (seven trials, n = 1,810).

In knee OA, “the effect of SNRIs was small and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance,” the researchers wrote. “However, the lower limit of the confidence interval did contain clinically important effects for pain, but not for disability.”
 

Antidepressant side effects in trials

A total of 21 trials (n = 4,107) looked at side effects when antidepressants were studied as treatments for back pain and OA. Low-certainty evidence in 13 SNRI trials (n = 3,447) suggested a higher risk of any adverse events in antidepressant versus placebo (62.5% vs. 49.7%; relative risk, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.30), but there was no significantly higher risk of serious adverse events in 10 SNRI trials with 3,309 subjects (1.6% vs. 1.3%; RR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.61-2.07).

As for adverse effects of non-SNRIs, “the number of studies evaluating the safety of other antidepressant classes was small, trials were underpowered to detect harm, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low,” the researchers wrote.

Going forward, the authors said that “large, definitive randomized trials that are free of industry ties are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties about the efficacy of antidepressants for sciatica and osteoarthritis highlighted by this review.”
 

‘Largely ineffective’ drug treatments

In an accompanying commentary, Martin Underwood, of the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, and Colin Tysall, of the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, also in Coventry, noted that “drug treatments are largely ineffective for back pain and osteoarthritis and have the potential for serious harm. We need to work harder to help people with these disorders to live better with their pain without recourse to the prescription pad.”

However, they noted that SNRIs may still be helpful for patients with back pain or OA. “Absolute effect sizes for physical treatments for low-back pain are of similar magnitudes to those reported here and translate into numbers needed to treat of between five and nine. If the same were true for SNRIs, some people might choose to a try that option for a 1 in 10 chance of a worthwhile reduction in pain after 3 months. They can easily stop if treatment is ineffective or does not suit them.”

The research received no specific funding. The review authors disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline (postgraduate scholarship), Pfizer (investigational product for two trials), and Flexeze (provision of heat wraps for a trial). Mr. Underwood reported being a director and shareholder of Clinvivo. Mr. Tysall reported no disclosures.

While some guidelines support serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as treatments for back pain, a new systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research found no firm evidence of a benefit. Adverse effects, however, are common.

“Our review shows that, although these medicines are effective, the effect is small and unlikely to be considered clinically important by most patients,” wrote the authors of the review, which appeared Jan. 20 in the BMJ. “Our review also showed that about two-thirds of patients using SNRIs experience adverse events.”

However, the report hinted that certain classes of antidepressants may provide significant relief in knee OA and sciatica.

According to a 2018 review, 10 of 15 clinical guidelines from around the world – including those of the American College of Physicians – recommended antidepressants as treatments for low back pain, and 2 advised against them. “Evidence supporting the use of antidepressants is, however, uncertain,” wrote the authors of the new review, led by Giovanni E. Ferreira, PhD, of the University of Sydney. “Systematic reviews of antidepressants for back pain and osteoarthritis have either not included several published trials, considered only one type of antidepressant (e.g., duloxetine), or failed to assess the certainty of evidence.”

For the new review, the authors analyzed 33 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 5,318 subjects. Both published data and unpublished data from clinical trial registries were included.
 

Back pain trials

A total of 19 trials examined back pain, mostly lower back pain (16 trials), and none lasted more than 1 year. Fifteen examined SNRIs while others looked at other kinds of antidepressants.

The researchers found that “the effect of SNRIs was small [on back pain] and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance. ... Evidence ranging from low to very low certainty showed no benefit of a range of antidepressant classes, including SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], tetracyclic antidepressants, SARIs [serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors], and NDRIs [norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors] for pain and disability across follow-ups of 2 weeks or less, 3-13 weeks, and 3-12 months.”
 

Sciatica trials

Six trials examined antidepressants as treatments for sciatica. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that SNRIs reduced pain at up to 2 weeks (1 trial, n = 50) but not at 3-13 weeks (3 trials, n = 96). The results of trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the opposite: low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggested the drugs didn’t reduce pain at up to 2 weeks (2 trials, n = 94) but did at 3-13 weeks (2 trials, n = 114) and 3-12 months (1 trial, n = 60).

“All sciatica trials were small, had imprecise estimates, and were at high risk of bias, which reduced the certainty of evidence to low and very low,” the authors cautioned. “This level of uncertainty indicates that the true estimate of effect of TCAs and SNRIs for sciatica is likely to be substantially different from what we estimated in our review.”
 

Knee OA trials

Eight trials examined SNRIs in knee OA. Moderate-certainty evidence linked the drugs to less pain at up to 2 weeks (four trials, n = 1,328) and low-certainty evidence linked them to less pain at 3-13 weeks (eight trials, n = 1,941). Low-certainty evidence also linked the drugs to less disability at 2 weeks or less (one trial, n = 353) and 3-13 weeks (seven trials, n = 1,810).

In knee OA, “the effect of SNRIs was small and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance,” the researchers wrote. “However, the lower limit of the confidence interval did contain clinically important effects for pain, but not for disability.”
 

Antidepressant side effects in trials

A total of 21 trials (n = 4,107) looked at side effects when antidepressants were studied as treatments for back pain and OA. Low-certainty evidence in 13 SNRI trials (n = 3,447) suggested a higher risk of any adverse events in antidepressant versus placebo (62.5% vs. 49.7%; relative risk, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.30), but there was no significantly higher risk of serious adverse events in 10 SNRI trials with 3,309 subjects (1.6% vs. 1.3%; RR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.61-2.07).

As for adverse effects of non-SNRIs, “the number of studies evaluating the safety of other antidepressant classes was small, trials were underpowered to detect harm, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low,” the researchers wrote.

Going forward, the authors said that “large, definitive randomized trials that are free of industry ties are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties about the efficacy of antidepressants for sciatica and osteoarthritis highlighted by this review.”
 

‘Largely ineffective’ drug treatments

In an accompanying commentary, Martin Underwood, of the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, and Colin Tysall, of the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, also in Coventry, noted that “drug treatments are largely ineffective for back pain and osteoarthritis and have the potential for serious harm. We need to work harder to help people with these disorders to live better with their pain without recourse to the prescription pad.”

However, they noted that SNRIs may still be helpful for patients with back pain or OA. “Absolute effect sizes for physical treatments for low-back pain are of similar magnitudes to those reported here and translate into numbers needed to treat of between five and nine. If the same were true for SNRIs, some people might choose to a try that option for a 1 in 10 chance of a worthwhile reduction in pain after 3 months. They can easily stop if treatment is ineffective or does not suit them.”

The research received no specific funding. The review authors disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline (postgraduate scholarship), Pfizer (investigational product for two trials), and Flexeze (provision of heat wraps for a trial). Mr. Underwood reported being a director and shareholder of Clinvivo. Mr. Tysall reported no disclosures.

Despite the lack of any Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for vitiligo, there are plenty of treatment options, and therapy can make a big difference in an individual’s quality of life, according to Seemal Desai, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“We have topical steroids. We have vitamin D analogs, calcineurin inhibitors, and depigmentation therapy. We also have systemic therapy, phototherapy, surgical treatment, and even psychological therapy, Dr. Desai said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Head and neck vitiligo, which “tends to respond very nicely to treatment,” is one of the affected areas “where we have an important obligation to make sure our patients are effectively and aggressively treated,” he said.

According to Dr. Desai, there are three kinds of vitiligo. Active/unstable vitiligo is marked by depigmentation spreading across 1%-2% of body surface area per month, the size of about one to two palms. Refractory vitiligo responds poorly to therapy with less than 25% of affected areas experiencing repigmentation. And the third type is chronic vitiligo. “The majority of patients we see are in this phase, where depigmentation is present for at least 1 year with no history of spontaneous repigmentation.”

Before turning to therapy, he said, make sure to understand what the patient wants. “Are they even interested in being treated? I’ve had some patients with vitiligo, it’s only on their chest, and they’re always covered. They don’t even want anything. Then I have other patients who only want their face and hands treated because those are the only parts of their body that are exposed.”

To stabilize vitiligo, Dr. Desai recommends treating patients with “mini-pulse” oral therapy with systemic steroids. “I prescribe 4 milligrams of dexamethasone to be taken 2 consecutive days per week, such as Saturdays and Sundays. I usually halve the dose in children aged less than 16 years of age, so they’d be taking 2 milligrams.” Make sure, he said, to counsel patients on side effects.

He also recommends antioxidants, particularly polypodium leucotomos, “which has been shown in studies to increase the rates of head and neck repigmentation when combined with narrowband UVB.” He recommends 240 milligrams or higher, 2 or 3 times a day. He adds that alpha lipoic acid – in combination with vitamin C, vitamin E, and phototherapy – has also been shown to be effective in inducing repigmentation, especially on the head and neck.

As for newer drugs, Dr. Desai said afamelanotide, an analogue of alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone combined with phototherapy, has shown promise. (It was approved in 2019 to increase pain free light exposure in adults with a history of phototoxic reactions related to erythropoietic protoporphyria.) Like other medications he mentioned, it isn’t FDA approved for treating vitiligo.

On another front, “Janus kinase inhibitors are our new frontier in treating vitiligo,” he said. “Tofacitinib can be dosed as an off-label usage in vitiligo in doses of 5 milligrams every other day, up to 5 milligrams daily. It’s half of the dose of rheumatoid arthritis, which is 5 milligrams b.i.d. You can actually start to see repigmentation as soon as 2 months, and then improvement up to 5 months.”

The drug requires laboratory monitoring and is expensive, he said, and JAK inhibitor side effects must be discussed with all patients.

Topical JAK inhibitors – tofacitinib 2% cream and ruxolitinib 1.5% cream – are also being evaluated as treatment for vitiligo. “I find that ruxolitinib works a little bit better, and the early bit of vitiligo data has shown that it tends to have more of a robust pigmentation response compared to tofacitinib,” said Dr. Desai, who gets these drugs compounded for topical use.

Dr. Desai added that he prefers to combine JAK inhibitors with phototherapy when possible.

For resistant vitiligo, he said, “lasers can help, especially Q-switched ruby and Q-switched Alexandrite laser. Q-switched Nd:Yag is very popular in Asia.”

In the big picture, he said, patients can benefit greatly from treatment. “Just think about the psychological improvement a patient would get by not having to get stares when walking in a mall and not having to deal with vitiligo lesions all over their cheek and neck.”

Dr. Desai disclosed performing clinical trials and/or consulting for numerous companies, including Pfizer, Allergan, AbbVie, and Dr. Reddy’s, among others. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Despite the lack of any Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for vitiligo, there are plenty of treatment options, and therapy can make a big difference in an individual’s quality of life, according to Seemal Desai, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“We have topical steroids. We have vitamin D analogs, calcineurin inhibitors, and depigmentation therapy. We also have systemic therapy, phototherapy, surgical treatment, and even psychological therapy, Dr. Desai said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Head and neck vitiligo, which “tends to respond very nicely to treatment,” is one of the affected areas “where we have an important obligation to make sure our patients are effectively and aggressively treated,” he said.

According to Dr. Desai, there are three kinds of vitiligo. Active/unstable vitiligo is marked by depigmentation spreading across 1%-2% of body surface area per month, the size of about one to two palms. Refractory vitiligo responds poorly to therapy with less than 25% of affected areas experiencing repigmentation. And the third type is chronic vitiligo. “The majority of patients we see are in this phase, where depigmentation is present for at least 1 year with no history of spontaneous repigmentation.”

Before turning to therapy, he said, make sure to understand what the patient wants. “Are they even interested in being treated? I’ve had some patients with vitiligo, it’s only on their chest, and they’re always covered. They don’t even want anything. Then I have other patients who only want their face and hands treated because those are the only parts of their body that are exposed.”

To stabilize vitiligo, Dr. Desai recommends treating patients with “mini-pulse” oral therapy with systemic steroids. “I prescribe 4 milligrams of dexamethasone to be taken 2 consecutive days per week, such as Saturdays and Sundays. I usually halve the dose in children aged less than 16 years of age, so they’d be taking 2 milligrams.” Make sure, he said, to counsel patients on side effects.

He also recommends antioxidants, particularly polypodium leucotomos, “which has been shown in studies to increase the rates of head and neck repigmentation when combined with narrowband UVB.” He recommends 240 milligrams or higher, 2 or 3 times a day. He adds that alpha lipoic acid – in combination with vitamin C, vitamin E, and phototherapy – has also been shown to be effective in inducing repigmentation, especially on the head and neck.

As for newer drugs, Dr. Desai said afamelanotide, an analogue of alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone combined with phototherapy, has shown promise. (It was approved in 2019 to increase pain free light exposure in adults with a history of phototoxic reactions related to erythropoietic protoporphyria.) Like other medications he mentioned, it isn’t FDA approved for treating vitiligo.

On another front, “Janus kinase inhibitors are our new frontier in treating vitiligo,” he said. “Tofacitinib can be dosed as an off-label usage in vitiligo in doses of 5 milligrams every other day, up to 5 milligrams daily. It’s half of the dose of rheumatoid arthritis, which is 5 milligrams b.i.d. You can actually start to see repigmentation as soon as 2 months, and then improvement up to 5 months.”

The drug requires laboratory monitoring and is expensive, he said, and JAK inhibitor side effects must be discussed with all patients.

Topical JAK inhibitors – tofacitinib 2% cream and ruxolitinib 1.5% cream – are also being evaluated as treatment for vitiligo. “I find that ruxolitinib works a little bit better, and the early bit of vitiligo data has shown that it tends to have more of a robust pigmentation response compared to tofacitinib,” said Dr. Desai, who gets these drugs compounded for topical use.

Dr. Desai added that he prefers to combine JAK inhibitors with phototherapy when possible.

For resistant vitiligo, he said, “lasers can help, especially Q-switched ruby and Q-switched Alexandrite laser. Q-switched Nd:Yag is very popular in Asia.”

In the big picture, he said, patients can benefit greatly from treatment. “Just think about the psychological improvement a patient would get by not having to get stares when walking in a mall and not having to deal with vitiligo lesions all over their cheek and neck.”

Dr. Desai disclosed performing clinical trials and/or consulting for numerous companies, including Pfizer, Allergan, AbbVie, and Dr. Reddy’s, among others. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Despite the lack of any Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for vitiligo, there are plenty of treatment options, and therapy can make a big difference in an individual’s quality of life, according to Seemal Desai, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“We have topical steroids. We have vitamin D analogs, calcineurin inhibitors, and depigmentation therapy. We also have systemic therapy, phototherapy, surgical treatment, and even psychological therapy, Dr. Desai said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Head and neck vitiligo, which “tends to respond very nicely to treatment,” is one of the affected areas “where we have an important obligation to make sure our patients are effectively and aggressively treated,” he said.

According to Dr. Desai, there are three kinds of vitiligo. Active/unstable vitiligo is marked by depigmentation spreading across 1%-2% of body surface area per month, the size of about one to two palms. Refractory vitiligo responds poorly to therapy with less than 25% of affected areas experiencing repigmentation. And the third type is chronic vitiligo. “The majority of patients we see are in this phase, where depigmentation is present for at least 1 year with no history of spontaneous repigmentation.”

Before turning to therapy, he said, make sure to understand what the patient wants. “Are they even interested in being treated? I’ve had some patients with vitiligo, it’s only on their chest, and they’re always covered. They don’t even want anything. Then I have other patients who only want their face and hands treated because those are the only parts of their body that are exposed.”

To stabilize vitiligo, Dr. Desai recommends treating patients with “mini-pulse” oral therapy with systemic steroids. “I prescribe 4 milligrams of dexamethasone to be taken 2 consecutive days per week, such as Saturdays and Sundays. I usually halve the dose in children aged less than 16 years of age, so they’d be taking 2 milligrams.” Make sure, he said, to counsel patients on side effects.

He also recommends antioxidants, particularly polypodium leucotomos, “which has been shown in studies to increase the rates of head and neck repigmentation when combined with narrowband UVB.” He recommends 240 milligrams or higher, 2 or 3 times a day. He adds that alpha lipoic acid – in combination with vitamin C, vitamin E, and phototherapy – has also been shown to be effective in inducing repigmentation, especially on the head and neck.

As for newer drugs, Dr. Desai said afamelanotide, an analogue of alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone combined with phototherapy, has shown promise. (It was approved in 2019 to increase pain free light exposure in adults with a history of phototoxic reactions related to erythropoietic protoporphyria.) Like other medications he mentioned, it isn’t FDA approved for treating vitiligo.

On another front, “Janus kinase inhibitors are our new frontier in treating vitiligo,” he said. “Tofacitinib can be dosed as an off-label usage in vitiligo in doses of 5 milligrams every other day, up to 5 milligrams daily. It’s half of the dose of rheumatoid arthritis, which is 5 milligrams b.i.d. You can actually start to see repigmentation as soon as 2 months, and then improvement up to 5 months.”

The drug requires laboratory monitoring and is expensive, he said, and JAK inhibitor side effects must be discussed with all patients.

Topical JAK inhibitors – tofacitinib 2% cream and ruxolitinib 1.5% cream – are also being evaluated as treatment for vitiligo. “I find that ruxolitinib works a little bit better, and the early bit of vitiligo data has shown that it tends to have more of a robust pigmentation response compared to tofacitinib,” said Dr. Desai, who gets these drugs compounded for topical use.

Dr. Desai added that he prefers to combine JAK inhibitors with phototherapy when possible.

For resistant vitiligo, he said, “lasers can help, especially Q-switched ruby and Q-switched Alexandrite laser. Q-switched Nd:Yag is very popular in Asia.”

In the big picture, he said, patients can benefit greatly from treatment. “Just think about the psychological improvement a patient would get by not having to get stares when walking in a mall and not having to deal with vitiligo lesions all over their cheek and neck.”

Dr. Desai disclosed performing clinical trials and/or consulting for numerous companies, including Pfizer, Allergan, AbbVie, and Dr. Reddy’s, among others. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.