Dermatology UMCG

Lancet Neurol. 2022 Jun;21(6):528-536. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00117-X.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Perinatal arterial ischaemic stroke (PAIS) is an important cause of neurodevelopmental disabilities. In this first-in-human study, we aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of intranasally delivered bone marrow-derived allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to treat PAIS in neonates.

METHODS: In this open-label intervention study in collaboration with all neonatal intensive care units in the Netherlands, we included neonates born at full term (?36 weeks of gestation) with MRI-confirmed PAIS in the middle cerebral artery region. All eligible patients were transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit of the Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital. Neonates received one dose of 45-50 × 10⁶ bone-marrow derived MSCs intranasally within 7 days of presenting signs of PAIS. The primary endpoints were acute and subacute safety outcomes, including vital signs, blood markers, and the occurrence of toxicity, adverse events, and serious adverse events. The occurrence of unexpected cerebral abnormalities by a repeat MRI at 3 months of age was a secondary endpoint. As part of standard clinical follow-up at Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, we assessed corticospinal tract development on MRI and performed motor assessments at 4 months of age. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03356821.

FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2020, and April 29, 2021, ten neonates were enrolled in the study. Intranasal administration of MSCs was well tolerated in all ten neonates. No serious adverse events were observed. One adverse event was seen: a mild transient fever of 38°C without the need for clinical intervention. Blood inflammation markers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and leukocyte count) were not significantly different pre-administration versus post-administration and, although thrombocyte levels increased (p=0·011), all were within the physiological range. Follow-up MRI scans did not show unexpected structural cerebral abnormalities. All ten patients had initial pre-Wallerian changes in the corticospinal tracts, but only four (40%) patients showed asymmetrical corticospinal tracts at follow-up MRI. Abnormal early motor assessment was found in three (30%) infants.

INTERPRETATION: This first-in-human study demonstrates that intranasal bone marrow-derived MSC administration in neonates after PAIS is feasible and no serious adverse events were observed in patients followed up until 3 months of age. Future large-scale placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine the therapeutic effect of intranasal MSCs for PAIS.

FUNDING: Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).

PMID:35568047 | DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00117-X

Int J Dermatol. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1111/ijd.16259. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35567488 | DOI:10.1111/ijd.16259

Contact Dermatitis. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1111/cod.14161. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35567385 | DOI:10.1111/cod.14161

Lancet Neurol. 2022 Jun;21(6):528-536. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00117-X.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Perinatal arterial ischaemic stroke (PAIS) is an important cause of neurodevelopmental disabilities. In this first-in-human study, we aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of intranasally delivered bone marrow-derived allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to treat PAIS in neonates.

METHODS: In this open-label intervention study in collaboration with all neonatal intensive care units in the Netherlands, we included neonates born at full term (?36 weeks of gestation) with MRI-confirmed PAIS in the middle cerebral artery region. All eligible patients were transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit of the Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital. Neonates received one dose of 45-50 × 10⁶ bone-marrow derived MSCs intranasally within 7 days of presenting signs of PAIS. The primary endpoints were acute and subacute safety outcomes, including vital signs, blood markers, and the occurrence of toxicity, adverse events, and serious adverse events. The occurrence of unexpected cerebral abnormalities by a repeat MRI at 3 months of age was a secondary endpoint. As part of standard clinical follow-up at Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, we assessed corticospinal tract development on MRI and performed motor assessments at 4 months of age. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03356821.

FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2020, and April 29, 2021, ten neonates were enrolled in the study. Intranasal administration of MSCs was well tolerated in all ten neonates. No serious adverse events were observed. One adverse event was seen: a mild transient fever of 38°C without the need for clinical intervention. Blood inflammation markers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and leukocyte count) were not significantly different pre-administration versus post-administration and, although thrombocyte levels increased (p=0·011), all were within the physiological range. Follow-up MRI scans did not show unexpected structural cerebral abnormalities. All ten patients had initial pre-Wallerian changes in the corticospinal tracts, but only four (40%) patients showed asymmetrical corticospinal tracts at follow-up MRI. Abnormal early motor assessment was found in three (30%) infants.

INTERPRETATION: This first-in-human study demonstrates that intranasal bone marrow-derived MSC administration in neonates after PAIS is feasible and no serious adverse events were observed in patients followed up until 3 months of age. Future large-scale placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine the therapeutic effect of intranasal MSCs for PAIS.

FUNDING: Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).

PMID:35568047 | DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00117-X

Int J Dermatol. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1111/ijd.16259. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35567488 | DOI:10.1111/ijd.16259

Contact Dermatitis. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1111/cod.14161. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35567385 | DOI:10.1111/cod.14161

Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 Apr 29. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00102-3. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination.

METHODS: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age ?18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513.

FINDINGS: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4·6% [95% CI 3·9-5·4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5·3% [95% CI 4·0-6·9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4·0% [95% CI 2·8-5·6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·66-1·18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·34-0·98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0·34 [0·18-0·56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections.

INTERPRETATION: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors.

FUNDING: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

PMID:35527808 | PMC:PMC9054068 | DOI:10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00102-3

Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 Apr 29. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00102-3. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination.

METHODS: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age ?18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513.

FINDINGS: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4·6% [95% CI 3·9-5·4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5·3% [95% CI 4·0-6·9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4·0% [95% CI 2·8-5·6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·66-1·18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·34-0·98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0·34 [0·18-0·56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections.

INTERPRETATION: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors.

FUNDING: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

PMID:35527808 | PMC:PMC9054068 | DOI:10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00102-3

JAMA Dermatol. 2022 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.1156. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Bullous pemphigoid is a difficult-to-treat autoimmune blistering skin disease that predominantly affects older adults and is associated with an increased mortality rate.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and therapeutic potential of nomacopan, an inhibitor of leukotriene B4 and complement C5, in patients with bullous pemphigoid.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, single-group, phase 2a nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted in the dermatology departments of universities in the Netherlands and Germany. Participants were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2020. Older adult patients (aged ?55 years) with mild to moderate, new-onset or relapsing bullous pemphigoid were recruited into the study.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients received nomacopan, 90 mg, subcutaneously on day 1 and 30 mg subcutaneously daily until day 42.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with grade 3 to 5 (severe) adverse events associated or possibly associated with nomacopan. Secondary end points included mean absolute and percentage changes in the Bullous Pemphigoid Disease Area Index (BPDAI) activity score, the BPDAI pruritus score, and the patient-reported outcome measures Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (TABQOL).

RESULTS: A total of 9 patients (median [range] age, 75 [55-85] years) with bullous pemphigoid were included in the trial, of whom 5 were women (55.6%). No serious adverse events associated with nomacopan were found. The mean (90% CI) BPDAI activity score decreased from 32.0 (8.7) points on day 1 to 19.6 (9.0) points on day 42. Seven of 9 patients (77.8%) responded to nomacopan with a reduction in the BPDAI activity score of at least 8 points between days 1 and 42; in 3 responders, the reduction was 80% or greater. On day 42, the mean (90% CI) BPDAI pruritus score had decreased by 6.8 (4.6) points from 17.6 (4.0) points on day 1. The mean (90% CI) DLQI score decreased from 11.3 (4.2) points at baseline to 6.4 (3.8) points by day 42, and the mean (90% CI) TABQOL score decreased from 14.6 (5.4) points at baseline to 10.3 (5.0) points on day 42.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that nomacopan can be well tolerated in older patients with bullous pemphigoid and may have therapeutic benefits for suppressing acute flares of this disease. A larger, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is warranted to confirm this safety profile and to establish nomacopan as a new therapeutic option for bullous pemphigoid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04035733.

PMID:35507334 | DOI:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.1156

JAMA Dermatol. 2022 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.1156. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Bullous pemphigoid is a difficult-to-treat autoimmune blistering skin disease that predominantly affects older adults and is associated with an increased mortality rate.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and therapeutic potential of nomacopan, an inhibitor of leukotriene B4 and complement C5, in patients with bullous pemphigoid.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, single-group, phase 2a nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted in the dermatology departments of universities in the Netherlands and Germany. Participants were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2020. Older adult patients (aged ?55 years) with mild to moderate, new-onset or relapsing bullous pemphigoid were recruited into the study.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients received nomacopan, 90 mg, subcutaneously on day 1 and 30 mg subcutaneously daily until day 42.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with grade 3 to 5 (severe) adverse events associated or possibly associated with nomacopan. Secondary end points included mean absolute and percentage changes in the Bullous Pemphigoid Disease Area Index (BPDAI) activity score, the BPDAI pruritus score, and the patient-reported outcome measures Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (TABQOL).

RESULTS: A total of 9 patients (median [range] age, 75 [55-85] years) with bullous pemphigoid were included in the trial, of whom 5 were women (55.6%). No serious adverse events associated with nomacopan were found. The mean (90% CI) BPDAI activity score decreased from 32.0 (8.7) points on day 1 to 19.6 (9.0) points on day 42. Seven of 9 patients (77.8%) responded to nomacopan with a reduction in the BPDAI activity score of at least 8 points between days 1 and 42; in 3 responders, the reduction was 80% or greater. On day 42, the mean (90% CI) BPDAI pruritus score had decreased by 6.8 (4.6) points from 17.6 (4.0) points on day 1. The mean (90% CI) DLQI score decreased from 11.3 (4.2) points at baseline to 6.4 (3.8) points by day 42, and the mean (90% CI) TABQOL score decreased from 14.6 (5.4) points at baseline to 10.3 (5.0) points on day 42.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that nomacopan can be well tolerated in older patients with bullous pemphigoid and may have therapeutic benefits for suppressing acute flares of this disease. A larger, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is warranted to confirm this safety profile and to establish nomacopan as a new therapeutic option for bullous pemphigoid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04035733.

PMID:35507334 | DOI:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.1156

Br J Dermatol. 2022 May;186(5):765-766. doi: 10.1111/bjd.21295.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35501939 | DOI:10.1111/bjd.21295

Br J Dermatol. 2022 May;186(5):765-766. doi: 10.1111/bjd.21295.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35501939 | DOI:10.1111/bjd.21295

Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05216-8. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several prognostic models for outcomes after chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) treatment have been published in recent years. However, these models are not sufficiently validated for use in daily clinical practice. We aimed to assess the performance of existing prediction models for outcomes in patients diagnosed with CSDH.

METHODS: We systematically searched relevant literature databases up to February 2021 to identify prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients diagnosed with CSDH. For the external validation of prognostic models, we used a retrospective database, containing data of 2384 patients from three Dutch regions. Prognostic models were included if they predicted either mortality, hematoma recurrence, functional outcome, or quality of life. Models were excluded when predictors were absent in our database or available for < 150 patients in our database. We assessed calibration, and discrimination (quantified by the concordance index C) of the included prognostic models in our retrospective database.

RESULTS: We identified 1680 original publications of which 1656 were excluded based on title or abstract, mostly because they did not concern CSDH or did not define a prognostic model. Out of 18 identified models, three could be externally validated in our retrospective database: a model for 30-day mortality in 1656 patients, a model for 2 months, and another for 3-month hematoma recurrence both in 1733 patients. The models overestimated the proportion of patients with these outcomes by 11% (15% predicted vs. 4% observed), 1% (10% vs. 9%), and 2% (11% vs. 9%), respectively. Their discriminative ability was poor to modest (C of 0.70 [0.63-0.77]; 0.46 [0.35-0.56]; 0.59 [0.51-0.66], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: None of the examined models showed good predictive performance for outcomes after CSDH treatment in our dataset. This study confirms the difficulty in predicting outcomes after CSDH and emphasizes the heterogeneity of CSDH patients. The importance of developing high-quality models by using unified predictors and relevant outcome measures and appropriate modeling strategies is warranted.

PMID:35501576 | DOI:10.1007/s00701-022-05216-8

Joint Bone Spine. 2022 Apr 29:105381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2022.105381. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35500799 | DOI:10.1016/j.jbspin.2022.105381

Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05216-8. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several prognostic models for outcomes after chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) treatment have been published in recent years. However, these models are not sufficiently validated for use in daily clinical practice. We aimed to assess the performance of existing prediction models for outcomes in patients diagnosed with CSDH.

METHODS: We systematically searched relevant literature databases up to February 2021 to identify prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients diagnosed with CSDH. For the external validation of prognostic models, we used a retrospective database, containing data of 2384 patients from three Dutch regions. Prognostic models were included if they predicted either mortality, hematoma recurrence, functional outcome, or quality of life. Models were excluded when predictors were absent in our database or available for < 150 patients in our database. We assessed calibration, and discrimination (quantified by the concordance index C) of the included prognostic models in our retrospective database.

RESULTS: We identified 1680 original publications of which 1656 were excluded based on title or abstract, mostly because they did not concern CSDH or did not define a prognostic model. Out of 18 identified models, three could be externally validated in our retrospective database: a model for 30-day mortality in 1656 patients, a model for 2 months, and another for 3-month hematoma recurrence both in 1733 patients. The models overestimated the proportion of patients with these outcomes by 11% (15% predicted vs. 4% observed), 1% (10% vs. 9%), and 2% (11% vs. 9%), respectively. Their discriminative ability was poor to modest (C of 0.70 [0.63-0.77]; 0.46 [0.35-0.56]; 0.59 [0.51-0.66], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: None of the examined models showed good predictive performance for outcomes after CSDH treatment in our dataset. This study confirms the difficulty in predicting outcomes after CSDH and emphasizes the heterogeneity of CSDH patients. The importance of developing high-quality models by using unified predictors and relevant outcome measures and appropriate modeling strategies is warranted.

PMID:35501576 | DOI:10.1007/s00701-022-05216-8