Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The findings of this study emphasize the need for studies in the migraine-dementia pathophysiology, in particular in migraine cases with aura,” said Sabrina Islamoska, MSc, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen. “This study highlights the importance of monitoring severe migraine to potentially prevent dementia.”
 

A national register-based study

The study used Danish national register–based data from 1988 to 2017 of 1.66 million individuals born between 1935 and 1956, retrieving exposure information until age 59 years and following individuals for dementia after age 60. The matched analysis included 18,135 people registered with migraine before age 59 and 1.38 million without migraine. The matched study population was 62,578.

A diagnosis of dementia or use of dementia medications after age 60 years was the main outcome. Covariates included socioeconomic factors, psychiatric comorbidities and other headache diagnoses.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Islamoska said.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“We also found a 20% higher but nonsignificant dementia rate in individuals who had migraine without aura,” she said. However, when the migraine-with-aura population was evaluated, it was found to have a dementia rate two times higher than people with no migraine. “The dementia rate was higher if individuals had more frequent hospital contacts with migraine.”

The findings support the hypothesis that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, she said.

“The findings underline the value of investigating the effect of migraine medications in dementia risk to assess the impact of mild to moderate migraines,” Dr. Islamoska said. “Therefore, the next step is to investigate the risk of dementia among users of migraine medications who are not diagnosed with migraines at hospitals.”

Strengths of the study, Dr. Islamoska noted, were its size and national nature of its population, that it included all migraine diagnoses at hospitals over a 29-year period, that it made adjustments for confounding of well-established dementia risk factors, and that it validated dementia diagnoses after age 60 years.

One limitation was that the study only included hospital-based diagnoses of dementia while 60% of cases in Denmark are undiagnosed, “thus our results only apply to migraine that is severe enough to require a hospital contact,” Dr. Islamoska said, while most migraine cases are treated in the primary care setting.

Also, the young study population may have a lower dementia risk. “We also know that age of migraine registration may not corresponded with the actual onset, since migraine is a complex disorder with individual variation in patient’s burden and course of disease,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“Future studies are needed to understand the pathological mechanisms underlying the relationship between migraine and dementia and to investigate whether proper prophylactic treatment of migraine can potentially prevent dementia,” Dr. Islamoska said. “In addition, when investigating the association between these two prevalent neurological disorders, the timing of migraine diagnosis and dementia onset is important to ensure temporality. We took this into account in our study to strengthen the validity of our results.”
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Danish study makes an important contribution to the literature on dementia risk factors. “Vanishingly small amounts of attention have been paid to migraine as a potential risk factor,” he said. However, he called the results “surprising” based on his own clinical experience. “I actually had a sense that migraine was somehow protective against Alzheimer’s or other kinds of dementias.”

He questioned if the migraine-dementia link could be a “reporting artifact” of migraine sufferers merely going to the neurologist, raising the likelihood of a positive migraine diagnosis. Nonetheless, the results are “intriguing” and raise important questions about migraine therapy and dementia risk.

“If it holds up, it really is something that behooves us to understand whether intervening in terms of therapy for migraine has even more consequences beyond just the immediate relief of symptoms,” Dr. Charles said. “It’s something we should be thinking about in terms of preventing longer-term consequences of this disorder.”

Dr. Islamoska disclosed that Veluxfondent funded the study as part of her PhD project. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Islamoska S et al. AHS 2020, Submission 846214.

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The findings of this study emphasize the need for studies in the migraine-dementia pathophysiology, in particular in migraine cases with aura,” said Sabrina Islamoska, MSc, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen. “This study highlights the importance of monitoring severe migraine to potentially prevent dementia.”
 

A national register-based study

The study used Danish national register–based data from 1988 to 2017 of 1.66 million individuals born between 1935 and 1956, retrieving exposure information until age 59 years and following individuals for dementia after age 60. The matched analysis included 18,135 people registered with migraine before age 59 and 1.38 million without migraine. The matched study population was 62,578.

A diagnosis of dementia or use of dementia medications after age 60 years was the main outcome. Covariates included socioeconomic factors, psychiatric comorbidities and other headache diagnoses.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Islamoska said.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“We also found a 20% higher but nonsignificant dementia rate in individuals who had migraine without aura,” she said. However, when the migraine-with-aura population was evaluated, it was found to have a dementia rate two times higher than people with no migraine. “The dementia rate was higher if individuals had more frequent hospital contacts with migraine.”

The findings support the hypothesis that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, she said.

“The findings underline the value of investigating the effect of migraine medications in dementia risk to assess the impact of mild to moderate migraines,” Dr. Islamoska said. “Therefore, the next step is to investigate the risk of dementia among users of migraine medications who are not diagnosed with migraines at hospitals.”

Strengths of the study, Dr. Islamoska noted, were its size and national nature of its population, that it included all migraine diagnoses at hospitals over a 29-year period, that it made adjustments for confounding of well-established dementia risk factors, and that it validated dementia diagnoses after age 60 years.

One limitation was that the study only included hospital-based diagnoses of dementia while 60% of cases in Denmark are undiagnosed, “thus our results only apply to migraine that is severe enough to require a hospital contact,” Dr. Islamoska said, while most migraine cases are treated in the primary care setting.

Also, the young study population may have a lower dementia risk. “We also know that age of migraine registration may not corresponded with the actual onset, since migraine is a complex disorder with individual variation in patient’s burden and course of disease,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“Future studies are needed to understand the pathological mechanisms underlying the relationship between migraine and dementia and to investigate whether proper prophylactic treatment of migraine can potentially prevent dementia,” Dr. Islamoska said. “In addition, when investigating the association between these two prevalent neurological disorders, the timing of migraine diagnosis and dementia onset is important to ensure temporality. We took this into account in our study to strengthen the validity of our results.”
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Danish study makes an important contribution to the literature on dementia risk factors. “Vanishingly small amounts of attention have been paid to migraine as a potential risk factor,” he said. However, he called the results “surprising” based on his own clinical experience. “I actually had a sense that migraine was somehow protective against Alzheimer’s or other kinds of dementias.”

He questioned if the migraine-dementia link could be a “reporting artifact” of migraine sufferers merely going to the neurologist, raising the likelihood of a positive migraine diagnosis. Nonetheless, the results are “intriguing” and raise important questions about migraine therapy and dementia risk.

“If it holds up, it really is something that behooves us to understand whether intervening in terms of therapy for migraine has even more consequences beyond just the immediate relief of symptoms,” Dr. Charles said. “It’s something we should be thinking about in terms of preventing longer-term consequences of this disorder.”

Dr. Islamoska disclosed that Veluxfondent funded the study as part of her PhD project. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Islamoska S et al. AHS 2020, Submission 846214.

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The findings of this study emphasize the need for studies in the migraine-dementia pathophysiology, in particular in migraine cases with aura,” said Sabrina Islamoska, MSc, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen. “This study highlights the importance of monitoring severe migraine to potentially prevent dementia.”
 

A national register-based study

The study used Danish national register–based data from 1988 to 2017 of 1.66 million individuals born between 1935 and 1956, retrieving exposure information until age 59 years and following individuals for dementia after age 60. The matched analysis included 18,135 people registered with migraine before age 59 and 1.38 million without migraine. The matched study population was 62,578.

A diagnosis of dementia or use of dementia medications after age 60 years was the main outcome. Covariates included socioeconomic factors, psychiatric comorbidities and other headache diagnoses.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Islamoska said.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“We also found a 20% higher but nonsignificant dementia rate in individuals who had migraine without aura,” she said. However, when the migraine-with-aura population was evaluated, it was found to have a dementia rate two times higher than people with no migraine. “The dementia rate was higher if individuals had more frequent hospital contacts with migraine.”

The findings support the hypothesis that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, she said.

“The findings underline the value of investigating the effect of migraine medications in dementia risk to assess the impact of mild to moderate migraines,” Dr. Islamoska said. “Therefore, the next step is to investigate the risk of dementia among users of migraine medications who are not diagnosed with migraines at hospitals.”

Strengths of the study, Dr. Islamoska noted, were its size and national nature of its population, that it included all migraine diagnoses at hospitals over a 29-year period, that it made adjustments for confounding of well-established dementia risk factors, and that it validated dementia diagnoses after age 60 years.

One limitation was that the study only included hospital-based diagnoses of dementia while 60% of cases in Denmark are undiagnosed, “thus our results only apply to migraine that is severe enough to require a hospital contact,” Dr. Islamoska said, while most migraine cases are treated in the primary care setting.

Also, the young study population may have a lower dementia risk. “We also know that age of migraine registration may not corresponded with the actual onset, since migraine is a complex disorder with individual variation in patient’s burden and course of disease,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“Future studies are needed to understand the pathological mechanisms underlying the relationship between migraine and dementia and to investigate whether proper prophylactic treatment of migraine can potentially prevent dementia,” Dr. Islamoska said. “In addition, when investigating the association between these two prevalent neurological disorders, the timing of migraine diagnosis and dementia onset is important to ensure temporality. We took this into account in our study to strengthen the validity of our results.”
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Danish study makes an important contribution to the literature on dementia risk factors. “Vanishingly small amounts of attention have been paid to migraine as a potential risk factor,” he said. However, he called the results “surprising” based on his own clinical experience. “I actually had a sense that migraine was somehow protective against Alzheimer’s or other kinds of dementias.”

He questioned if the migraine-dementia link could be a “reporting artifact” of migraine sufferers merely going to the neurologist, raising the likelihood of a positive migraine diagnosis. Nonetheless, the results are “intriguing” and raise important questions about migraine therapy and dementia risk.

“If it holds up, it really is something that behooves us to understand whether intervening in terms of therapy for migraine has even more consequences beyond just the immediate relief of symptoms,” Dr. Charles said. “It’s something we should be thinking about in terms of preventing longer-term consequences of this disorder.”

Dr. Islamoska disclosed that Veluxfondent funded the study as part of her PhD project. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Islamoska S et al. AHS 2020, Submission 846214.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may offer the chance of a cure for patients with leukemia and other blood cancers, but the process of preparing the body to receive such a transplant can be brutal, involving whole body irradiation as well as chemotherapy conditioning. New results show that both steps are needed: a trial that omitted whole body irradiation in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was stopped early because of significantly poorer outcomes.

The multicenter, global FORUM (For Omitting Radiation Under Majority Age) trial involved 75 centers in 17 countries between 2013 and 2018.

“Our study shows significantly better outcomes for total body irradiation compared to myeloablative chemo-conditioning arms, with no differences between the [two] chemo-conditioning groups,” concluded Christina Peters, MD, professor of pediatrics in the department of stem cell transplantation at St Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna.

The findings in favor of total body irradiation were pronounced enough that the study was halted early by a safety committee, she added.

Dr. Peters presented the findings as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Describing the results as “sobering,” session comoderator Shai Izraeli, MD, director of the department of hematology-oncology at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, in Petah Tikva, Israel, said an online comment from the virtual meeting audience reflected the reaction to these unwelcome results: “So we are still stuck with total body irradiation?”

Dr. Peters said the good news is that the number of patients needing to undergo stem cell transplants is low, and with research advances, may hopefully drop even further.

“Only 10% of patients under the age of 18 nowadays undergo allogeneic HSCT, and perhaps in the future that will become even less if we are able to rescue some of the groups with other immunological measures such as CAR-T cells and antibodies,” she said.

“I think it is very important to better identify those who really need total body irradiation in the future,” she added.

In an interview, Dr. Izraeli agreed.

“The prognosis of children after bone marrow transplantation is excellent – the majority are cured from their leukemia,” he said. “And we have to remember that those who undergo bone marrow transplant have the worst leukemias.”

He pointed out that, in fact, contemporary chemotherapy alone is effective in the treatment of more than 90% of patients with ALL younger than aged 18.

For the 10% of patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone and undergo allogeneic HSCT, about 50%-80% of pediatric patients who have resistant leukemia are cured. However, the total body irradiation used to prepare the body to receive the transplant is linked to potentially serious consequences later in life, including sterility, lung problems, growth retardation, and secondary cancer.

To determine if the irradiation component could be safely replaced with a chemotherapy-based conditioning approach, Dr. Peters and colleagues conducted the FORUM trial.

In total 413 patients undergoing HSCT were enrolled and randomized to pretransplant conditioning with total body irradiation and etoposide (n = 202) or a chemotherapy-only approach with fludarabine/thiotepa/busulfan (flu/thio/bu; n = 99) or fludarabine/thiotepa/treosulfan (treo; n = 93).

Most patients (72%) had B-cell precursor ALL and 23% had T-cell ALL. Just over half (54%) were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 4% in CR3.

The source of stem cells was bone marrow for most patients (82%); peripheral blood stem cell for 12%, and cord blood for 4%.
 

Study stopped early

The aim of the study was to demonstrate noninferiority with the chemotherapy approach.

However, the significantly inferior outcome observed in the chemotherapy-only group led to randomization being halted in March 2019.

The 2-year overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean observation time of 2.1 years, was 0.75 ± 0.04 for chemo-conditioning versus 0.91 ± 0.02 for total body irradiation/etoposide (ITT P < .001).

The ITT analysis showed relapses were significantly higher in the chemo-conditioning group (2-year cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR], 0.33) compared with the total body irradiation group (CIR, 0.12; P < .001).

The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was also significantly higher in the total body irradiation group (0.86 vs 0.58; P < .001), and transplant-related mortality over 2 years was lower with total body irradiation (0.02 vs 0.09; P = .02).

A per-protocol analysis showed the 2-year overall survival to be the same in the two chemotherapy groups (both 0.77 ± 0.05) compared with 0.91 ± 0.02 in the total body irradiation group (P = .003).

“In this cohort [the 91% overall survival rate] may even be lower than contemporary intensive frontline therapy results that are achieved nowadays,” Dr. Peters said.

In looking at subgroups, there were no significant differences according to age group or cancer phenotype, while MLL rearrangement was associated with higher relapse incidence.

Remission status was found to notably influence EFS, dropping from 0.91 in CR1 patients with total body irradiation to 0.76 in CR2 patients. However, total body irradiation remained significantly higher compared with the chemo-conditioning groups in CR1 (P = .004) and CR2 (P < .001).

Transplant-related mortality was not significantly different between the total body irradiation and chemo-conditioning groups in the CR1 or CR2 groups (P = .09 and P = .18, respectively), despite the significant difference when remission status was not included.

Overall, “we tried to identify subgroups in which total body irradiation might be eliminated, however in all analyses, total body irradiation was better than chemo-conditioning in all arms,” Dr. Peters said.

Meanwhile, the findings underscore that even when patients cannot receive total body irradiation, the alternative chemo-conditioning therapy in fact shows favorable efficacy on its own, Dr. Izraeli said.

“The prognosis of the chemotherapy group is also quite remarkably good, although less than the total body irradiation arm. This means that if for some reason total body irradiation cannot be given, the chemotherapy is a very reasonable alternative.”

Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Jazz, and Neovii. Dr. Izraeli has reported no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: EHA Congress. Abstract S102.

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

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may offer the chance of a cure for patients with leukemia and other blood cancers, but the process of preparing the body to receive such a transplant can be brutal, involving whole body irradiation as well as chemotherapy conditioning. New results show that both steps are needed: a trial that omitted whole body irradiation in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was stopped early because of significantly poorer outcomes.

The multicenter, global FORUM (For Omitting Radiation Under Majority Age) trial involved 75 centers in 17 countries between 2013 and 2018.

“Our study shows significantly better outcomes for total body irradiation compared to myeloablative chemo-conditioning arms, with no differences between the [two] chemo-conditioning groups,” concluded Christina Peters, MD, professor of pediatrics in the department of stem cell transplantation at St Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna.

The findings in favor of total body irradiation were pronounced enough that the study was halted early by a safety committee, she added.

Dr. Peters presented the findings as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Describing the results as “sobering,” session comoderator Shai Izraeli, MD, director of the department of hematology-oncology at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, in Petah Tikva, Israel, said an online comment from the virtual meeting audience reflected the reaction to these unwelcome results: “So we are still stuck with total body irradiation?”

Dr. Peters said the good news is that the number of patients needing to undergo stem cell transplants is low, and with research advances, may hopefully drop even further.

“Only 10% of patients under the age of 18 nowadays undergo allogeneic HSCT, and perhaps in the future that will become even less if we are able to rescue some of the groups with other immunological measures such as CAR-T cells and antibodies,” she said.

“I think it is very important to better identify those who really need total body irradiation in the future,” she added.

In an interview, Dr. Izraeli agreed.

“The prognosis of children after bone marrow transplantation is excellent – the majority are cured from their leukemia,” he said. “And we have to remember that those who undergo bone marrow transplant have the worst leukemias.”

He pointed out that, in fact, contemporary chemotherapy alone is effective in the treatment of more than 90% of patients with ALL younger than aged 18.

For the 10% of patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone and undergo allogeneic HSCT, about 50%-80% of pediatric patients who have resistant leukemia are cured. However, the total body irradiation used to prepare the body to receive the transplant is linked to potentially serious consequences later in life, including sterility, lung problems, growth retardation, and secondary cancer.

To determine if the irradiation component could be safely replaced with a chemotherapy-based conditioning approach, Dr. Peters and colleagues conducted the FORUM trial.

In total 413 patients undergoing HSCT were enrolled and randomized to pretransplant conditioning with total body irradiation and etoposide (n = 202) or a chemotherapy-only approach with fludarabine/thiotepa/busulfan (flu/thio/bu; n = 99) or fludarabine/thiotepa/treosulfan (treo; n = 93).

Most patients (72%) had B-cell precursor ALL and 23% had T-cell ALL. Just over half (54%) were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 4% in CR3.

The source of stem cells was bone marrow for most patients (82%); peripheral blood stem cell for 12%, and cord blood for 4%.
 

Study stopped early

The aim of the study was to demonstrate noninferiority with the chemotherapy approach.

However, the significantly inferior outcome observed in the chemotherapy-only group led to randomization being halted in March 2019.

The 2-year overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean observation time of 2.1 years, was 0.75 ± 0.04 for chemo-conditioning versus 0.91 ± 0.02 for total body irradiation/etoposide (ITT P < .001).

The ITT analysis showed relapses were significantly higher in the chemo-conditioning group (2-year cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR], 0.33) compared with the total body irradiation group (CIR, 0.12; P < .001).

The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was also significantly higher in the total body irradiation group (0.86 vs 0.58; P < .001), and transplant-related mortality over 2 years was lower with total body irradiation (0.02 vs 0.09; P = .02).

A per-protocol analysis showed the 2-year overall survival to be the same in the two chemotherapy groups (both 0.77 ± 0.05) compared with 0.91 ± 0.02 in the total body irradiation group (P = .003).

“In this cohort [the 91% overall survival rate] may even be lower than contemporary intensive frontline therapy results that are achieved nowadays,” Dr. Peters said.

In looking at subgroups, there were no significant differences according to age group or cancer phenotype, while MLL rearrangement was associated with higher relapse incidence.

Remission status was found to notably influence EFS, dropping from 0.91 in CR1 patients with total body irradiation to 0.76 in CR2 patients. However, total body irradiation remained significantly higher compared with the chemo-conditioning groups in CR1 (P = .004) and CR2 (P < .001).

Transplant-related mortality was not significantly different between the total body irradiation and chemo-conditioning groups in the CR1 or CR2 groups (P = .09 and P = .18, respectively), despite the significant difference when remission status was not included.

Overall, “we tried to identify subgroups in which total body irradiation might be eliminated, however in all analyses, total body irradiation was better than chemo-conditioning in all arms,” Dr. Peters said.

Meanwhile, the findings underscore that even when patients cannot receive total body irradiation, the alternative chemo-conditioning therapy in fact shows favorable efficacy on its own, Dr. Izraeli said.

“The prognosis of the chemotherapy group is also quite remarkably good, although less than the total body irradiation arm. This means that if for some reason total body irradiation cannot be given, the chemotherapy is a very reasonable alternative.”

Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Jazz, and Neovii. Dr. Izraeli has reported no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: EHA Congress. Abstract S102.

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

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may offer the chance of a cure for patients with leukemia and other blood cancers, but the process of preparing the body to receive such a transplant can be brutal, involving whole body irradiation as well as chemotherapy conditioning. New results show that both steps are needed: a trial that omitted whole body irradiation in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was stopped early because of significantly poorer outcomes.

The multicenter, global FORUM (For Omitting Radiation Under Majority Age) trial involved 75 centers in 17 countries between 2013 and 2018.

“Our study shows significantly better outcomes for total body irradiation compared to myeloablative chemo-conditioning arms, with no differences between the [two] chemo-conditioning groups,” concluded Christina Peters, MD, professor of pediatrics in the department of stem cell transplantation at St Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna.

The findings in favor of total body irradiation were pronounced enough that the study was halted early by a safety committee, she added.

Dr. Peters presented the findings as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Describing the results as “sobering,” session comoderator Shai Izraeli, MD, director of the department of hematology-oncology at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, in Petah Tikva, Israel, said an online comment from the virtual meeting audience reflected the reaction to these unwelcome results: “So we are still stuck with total body irradiation?”

Dr. Peters said the good news is that the number of patients needing to undergo stem cell transplants is low, and with research advances, may hopefully drop even further.

“Only 10% of patients under the age of 18 nowadays undergo allogeneic HSCT, and perhaps in the future that will become even less if we are able to rescue some of the groups with other immunological measures such as CAR-T cells and antibodies,” she said.

“I think it is very important to better identify those who really need total body irradiation in the future,” she added.

In an interview, Dr. Izraeli agreed.

“The prognosis of children after bone marrow transplantation is excellent – the majority are cured from their leukemia,” he said. “And we have to remember that those who undergo bone marrow transplant have the worst leukemias.”

He pointed out that, in fact, contemporary chemotherapy alone is effective in the treatment of more than 90% of patients with ALL younger than aged 18.

For the 10% of patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone and undergo allogeneic HSCT, about 50%-80% of pediatric patients who have resistant leukemia are cured. However, the total body irradiation used to prepare the body to receive the transplant is linked to potentially serious consequences later in life, including sterility, lung problems, growth retardation, and secondary cancer.

To determine if the irradiation component could be safely replaced with a chemotherapy-based conditioning approach, Dr. Peters and colleagues conducted the FORUM trial.

In total 413 patients undergoing HSCT were enrolled and randomized to pretransplant conditioning with total body irradiation and etoposide (n = 202) or a chemotherapy-only approach with fludarabine/thiotepa/busulfan (flu/thio/bu; n = 99) or fludarabine/thiotepa/treosulfan (treo; n = 93).

Most patients (72%) had B-cell precursor ALL and 23% had T-cell ALL. Just over half (54%) were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 4% in CR3.

The source of stem cells was bone marrow for most patients (82%); peripheral blood stem cell for 12%, and cord blood for 4%.
 

Study stopped early

The aim of the study was to demonstrate noninferiority with the chemotherapy approach.

However, the significantly inferior outcome observed in the chemotherapy-only group led to randomization being halted in March 2019.

The 2-year overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean observation time of 2.1 years, was 0.75 ± 0.04 for chemo-conditioning versus 0.91 ± 0.02 for total body irradiation/etoposide (ITT P < .001).

The ITT analysis showed relapses were significantly higher in the chemo-conditioning group (2-year cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR], 0.33) compared with the total body irradiation group (CIR, 0.12; P < .001).

The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was also significantly higher in the total body irradiation group (0.86 vs 0.58; P < .001), and transplant-related mortality over 2 years was lower with total body irradiation (0.02 vs 0.09; P = .02).

A per-protocol analysis showed the 2-year overall survival to be the same in the two chemotherapy groups (both 0.77 ± 0.05) compared with 0.91 ± 0.02 in the total body irradiation group (P = .003).

“In this cohort [the 91% overall survival rate] may even be lower than contemporary intensive frontline therapy results that are achieved nowadays,” Dr. Peters said.

In looking at subgroups, there were no significant differences according to age group or cancer phenotype, while MLL rearrangement was associated with higher relapse incidence.

Remission status was found to notably influence EFS, dropping from 0.91 in CR1 patients with total body irradiation to 0.76 in CR2 patients. However, total body irradiation remained significantly higher compared with the chemo-conditioning groups in CR1 (P = .004) and CR2 (P < .001).

Transplant-related mortality was not significantly different between the total body irradiation and chemo-conditioning groups in the CR1 or CR2 groups (P = .09 and P = .18, respectively), despite the significant difference when remission status was not included.

Overall, “we tried to identify subgroups in which total body irradiation might be eliminated, however in all analyses, total body irradiation was better than chemo-conditioning in all arms,” Dr. Peters said.

Meanwhile, the findings underscore that even when patients cannot receive total body irradiation, the alternative chemo-conditioning therapy in fact shows favorable efficacy on its own, Dr. Izraeli said.

“The prognosis of the chemotherapy group is also quite remarkably good, although less than the total body irradiation arm. This means that if for some reason total body irradiation cannot be given, the chemotherapy is a very reasonable alternative.”

Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Jazz, and Neovii. Dr. Izraeli has reported no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: EHA Congress. Abstract S102.

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

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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