Federal Practitioner

BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.

“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”

Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.

Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:

• Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
• History of head or neck radiation.
• History of a prior thyroid surgery.
• Over age 30.
• Any autoimmune disease.
• A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m².
• History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
• Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
• Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
• Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.

ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.

Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).

“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”

The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.

Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.

In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.

Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
 

BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.

“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”

Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.

Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:

• Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
• History of head or neck radiation.
• History of a prior thyroid surgery.
• Over age 30.
• Any autoimmune disease.
• A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m².
• History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
• Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
• Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
• Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.

ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.

Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).

“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”

The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.

Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.

In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.

Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
 

BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.

“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”

Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.

Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:

• Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
• History of head or neck radiation.
• History of a prior thyroid surgery.
• Over age 30.
• Any autoimmune disease.
• A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m².
• History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
• Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
• Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
• Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.

ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.

Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).

“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”

The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.

Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.

In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.

Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
 

In a sign of the power of combination therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a small new study showed that patients were more likely to reach undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) when they added venetoclax to their drug regimen after a year or more of taking ibrutinib.

Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.

By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”

According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”

The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.

Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.

For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.

At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.

It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”

The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”

She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”

Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”

AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

In a sign of the power of combination therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a small new study showed that patients were more likely to reach undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) when they added venetoclax to their drug regimen after a year or more of taking ibrutinib.

Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.

By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”

According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”

The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.

Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.

For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.

At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.

It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”

The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”

She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”

Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”

AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

In a sign of the power of combination therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a small new study showed that patients were more likely to reach undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) when they added venetoclax to their drug regimen after a year or more of taking ibrutinib.

Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.

By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”

According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”

The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.

Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.

For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.

At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.

It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”

The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”

She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”

Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”

AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever topical gene therapy, which will be used to treat wounds in patients 6 months of age and older who have either recessive or dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), a rare skin disease.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.

Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.

The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.

“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement  announcing the approval.

“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.

“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.

Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.

Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”

Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.

DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.

Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.  

The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:

• Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
• Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
• Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.

FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).

Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.

Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.

Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever topical gene therapy, which will be used to treat wounds in patients 6 months of age and older who have either recessive or dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), a rare skin disease.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.

Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.

The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.

“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement  announcing the approval.

“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.

“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.

Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.

Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”

Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.

DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.

Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.  

The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:

• Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
• Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
• Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.

FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).

Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.

Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.

Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever topical gene therapy, which will be used to treat wounds in patients 6 months of age and older who have either recessive or dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), a rare skin disease.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.

Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.

The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.

“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement  announcing the approval.

“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.

“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.

Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.

Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”

Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.

DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.

Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.  

The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:

• Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
• Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
• Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.

FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).

Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.

Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.

Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly, AbbVie and Genmab) today for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following at least two lines of systemic therapy. This includes patients with DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.

“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.

A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.

The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.

Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.

At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.

The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.

Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.

The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).

The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly, AbbVie and Genmab) today for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following at least two lines of systemic therapy. This includes patients with DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.

“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.

A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.

The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.

Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.

At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.

The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.

Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.

The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).

The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly, AbbVie and Genmab) today for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following at least two lines of systemic therapy. This includes patients with DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.

“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.

A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.

The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.

Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.

At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.

The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.

Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.

The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).

The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
 

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