User login
FDA approves new antibiotic for HABP/VABP treatment
in people aged 18 years and older.
Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.
The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.
“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
in people aged 18 years and older.
Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.
The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.
“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
in people aged 18 years and older.
Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.
The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.
“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Lancet, NEJM retract studies on hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19
The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.
The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.
Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.
The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.
“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.
Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.
The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”
The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”
In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”
Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.
The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.
Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.
The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.
“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.
Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.
The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”
The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”
In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”
Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.
The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.
Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.
The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.
“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.
Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.
The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”
The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”
In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”
Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Promising’ durvalumab results spark phase 3 trial in mesothelioma
Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.
The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).
The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
Study details
Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.
Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.
The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.
All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
Results
Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.
It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).
The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.
The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).
To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.
He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.
Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).
The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
Putting the results in context
Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.
A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).
The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.
“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.
Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.
AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.
Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.
The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).
The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
Study details
Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.
Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.
The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.
All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
Results
Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.
It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).
The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.
The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).
To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.
He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.
Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).
The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
Putting the results in context
Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.
A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).
The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.
“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.
Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.
AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.
Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.
The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).
The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
Study details
Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.
Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.
The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.
All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
Results
Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.
It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).
The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.
The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).
To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.
He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.
Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).
The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
Putting the results in context
Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.
A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).
The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.
“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.
Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.
AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.
FROM ASCO 2020
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia can be successfully treated in the frail elderly
A treatment schedule of very attenuated chemotherapy using standard drugs is feasible and effective in frail and elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to a prospective study published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The study comprised 67 previously untreated patients with B- or T-lineage Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL from 30 Spanish hospitals who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ALL-07FRAIL trial (NCT01358201) from the Spanish PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologia) group from January 2008 to October 2019.
The median patient age in this analysis was 67 years and 51 patients (76%) were older than 70 years. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, with the main comorbidities being cardiovascular (47 patients), other neoplasia (24), diabetes (17), and very advanced age (>80 years; 12).
The attenuated treatment regimen consisted of a prephase with dexamethasone and intrathecal therapy with methotrexate was given for a maximum of 1 week. Then weekly induction therapy consisted of weekly vincristine (capped at 1 mg/week) and daily dexamethasone with a progressively decreasing dose along 4 weeks, as well as two additional doses of intrathecal methotrexate.
Those patients who achieved complete remission received maintenance therapy with mercaptopurine and methotrexate to complete 2 years of treatment. In addition, reinduction pulses with vincristine and dexamethasone were given every 3 months during the first year, according to Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain and colleagues on behalf of the PETHEMA group of the Spanish Society of Hematology.
The complete remission rate was 54% (36/67 patients). The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively.
Of the 32 patients who initiated maintenance therapy, 5 patients died of infection (2), hemorrhage (2), and acute cognitive impairment (1), and 23 relapsed, with a cumulative incidence of relapse of 74% and a median time to relapse of 12.3 months.
The most frequent toxic events reported were hematologic (neutropenia 77% and thrombocytopenia 54%, of grade III-IV in all cases) followed by infections, metabolic (mainly hyperglycemia), and neurologic, according to the researchers.
“The lack of similar trials specifically directed to this frail population is one of the major strengths of this study, and we consider that this minimal chemotherapy approach could be used as a backbone for addition of immuno/targeted therapy in this subset of infirm patients,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported by the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya and the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute. The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ribera J-M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.03.011.
A treatment schedule of very attenuated chemotherapy using standard drugs is feasible and effective in frail and elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to a prospective study published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The study comprised 67 previously untreated patients with B- or T-lineage Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL from 30 Spanish hospitals who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ALL-07FRAIL trial (NCT01358201) from the Spanish PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologia) group from January 2008 to October 2019.
The median patient age in this analysis was 67 years and 51 patients (76%) were older than 70 years. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, with the main comorbidities being cardiovascular (47 patients), other neoplasia (24), diabetes (17), and very advanced age (>80 years; 12).
The attenuated treatment regimen consisted of a prephase with dexamethasone and intrathecal therapy with methotrexate was given for a maximum of 1 week. Then weekly induction therapy consisted of weekly vincristine (capped at 1 mg/week) and daily dexamethasone with a progressively decreasing dose along 4 weeks, as well as two additional doses of intrathecal methotrexate.
Those patients who achieved complete remission received maintenance therapy with mercaptopurine and methotrexate to complete 2 years of treatment. In addition, reinduction pulses with vincristine and dexamethasone were given every 3 months during the first year, according to Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain and colleagues on behalf of the PETHEMA group of the Spanish Society of Hematology.
The complete remission rate was 54% (36/67 patients). The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively.
Of the 32 patients who initiated maintenance therapy, 5 patients died of infection (2), hemorrhage (2), and acute cognitive impairment (1), and 23 relapsed, with a cumulative incidence of relapse of 74% and a median time to relapse of 12.3 months.
The most frequent toxic events reported were hematologic (neutropenia 77% and thrombocytopenia 54%, of grade III-IV in all cases) followed by infections, metabolic (mainly hyperglycemia), and neurologic, according to the researchers.
“The lack of similar trials specifically directed to this frail population is one of the major strengths of this study, and we consider that this minimal chemotherapy approach could be used as a backbone for addition of immuno/targeted therapy in this subset of infirm patients,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported by the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya and the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute. The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ribera J-M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.03.011.
A treatment schedule of very attenuated chemotherapy using standard drugs is feasible and effective in frail and elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to a prospective study published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The study comprised 67 previously untreated patients with B- or T-lineage Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL from 30 Spanish hospitals who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ALL-07FRAIL trial (NCT01358201) from the Spanish PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologia) group from January 2008 to October 2019.
The median patient age in this analysis was 67 years and 51 patients (76%) were older than 70 years. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, with the main comorbidities being cardiovascular (47 patients), other neoplasia (24), diabetes (17), and very advanced age (>80 years; 12).
The attenuated treatment regimen consisted of a prephase with dexamethasone and intrathecal therapy with methotrexate was given for a maximum of 1 week. Then weekly induction therapy consisted of weekly vincristine (capped at 1 mg/week) and daily dexamethasone with a progressively decreasing dose along 4 weeks, as well as two additional doses of intrathecal methotrexate.
Those patients who achieved complete remission received maintenance therapy with mercaptopurine and methotrexate to complete 2 years of treatment. In addition, reinduction pulses with vincristine and dexamethasone were given every 3 months during the first year, according to Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain and colleagues on behalf of the PETHEMA group of the Spanish Society of Hematology.
The complete remission rate was 54% (36/67 patients). The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively.
Of the 32 patients who initiated maintenance therapy, 5 patients died of infection (2), hemorrhage (2), and acute cognitive impairment (1), and 23 relapsed, with a cumulative incidence of relapse of 74% and a median time to relapse of 12.3 months.
The most frequent toxic events reported were hematologic (neutropenia 77% and thrombocytopenia 54%, of grade III-IV in all cases) followed by infections, metabolic (mainly hyperglycemia), and neurologic, according to the researchers.
“The lack of similar trials specifically directed to this frail population is one of the major strengths of this study, and we consider that this minimal chemotherapy approach could be used as a backbone for addition of immuno/targeted therapy in this subset of infirm patients,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported by the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya and the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute. The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ribera J-M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.03.011.
FROM CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA
FDA okays emergency use for Impella RP in COVID-19 right heart failure
The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.
“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.
It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.
“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”
Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.
The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.
The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.
The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.
Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.
“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.
It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.
“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”
Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.
The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.
The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.
The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.
Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.
“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.
It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.
“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”
Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.
The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.
The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.
The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.
Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
More evidence hydroxychloroquine is ineffective, harmful in COVID-19
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.
In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.
Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.
Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.
“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
‘Inconclusive’ evidence
The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.
Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.
“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.
They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.
Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).
The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.
Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).
Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
Comorbidities and underlying conditions
The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.
“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.
No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
As good as it gets
“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.
Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.
After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.
Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).
“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.
“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.
“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.
“Let the science speak for itself”
Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”
Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”
Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.
He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”
Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”
Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”
The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.
In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.
Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.
Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.
“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
‘Inconclusive’ evidence
The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.
Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.
“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.
They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.
Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).
The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.
Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).
Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
Comorbidities and underlying conditions
The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.
“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.
No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
As good as it gets
“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.
Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.
After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.
Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).
“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.
“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.
“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.
“Let the science speak for itself”
Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”
Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”
Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.
He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”
Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”
Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”
The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.
In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.
Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.
Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.
“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
‘Inconclusive’ evidence
The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.
Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.
“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.
They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.
Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).
The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.
Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).
Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
Comorbidities and underlying conditions
The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.
“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.
No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
As good as it gets
“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.
Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.
After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.
Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).
“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.
“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.
“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.
“Let the science speak for itself”
Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”
Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”
Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.
He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”
Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”
Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”
The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Low-dose erlotinib seems feasible for frail, elderly patients with NSCLC
, according to researchers.
They conducted a phase 2 trial to investigate whether one-third of the maximum tolerated dose of erlotinib could maintain sufficient plasma concentration of the drug while avoiding the adverse effects of higher doses. The results were published in JAMA Oncology.
Erlotinib and other epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have demonstrated efficacy in elderly patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC, according to study author Shingo Miyamoto, MD, of Japanese Red Cross Medical Center in Tokyo, and colleagues.
“With the increasing number of elderly patients with cancer, many of whom also have significant comorbidities, there is a considerable value in investigating whether EGFR-TKIs are effective for the frail population,” the authors wrote. They also noted that it is “difficult to identify the appropriate dose of molecular-targeted drugs.”
With this in mind, Dr. Miyamoto and colleagues conducted a single-arm, phase 2 trial of low-dose erlotinib in 80 chemotherapy-naive frail or elderly patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC. Frailty was defined by age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The patients’ median age was 80 years (range, 49-90 years).
Patients received erlotinib at 50 mg per day, which is one-third of the established maximum tolerated dose, for 4 weeks. Then, they were evaluated with radiologic imaging. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Dosing was modified by treatment response or by adverse events.
Results
At last follow-up, 7 of the 80 patients were still receiving low-dose erlotinib. Reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (n = 60), patient request (n = 6), adverse events (n = 4), and death (n = 3).
The overall response rate was 60%, and the disease control rate was 90%. The researchers measured plasma erlotinib concentration in 48 patients and found it did not correlate with response.
The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months, and the median overall survival was 26.2 months.
Ten patients had erlotinib temporarily suspended because of adverse events. Five patients had their dose reduced to 25 mg because of adverse events, including oral mucositis, paronychia, erythema multiforme, diarrhea, and anorexia.
Two patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. One patient had a cutaneous ulcer and bone infection. The other had oral mucositis.
Dr. Miyamoto and colleagues concluded that, “low-dose erlotinib was associated with efficacy and safety in frail patients with EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer. More research on the dosing strategy of target-based drugs is warranted, especially in frail patients in the real-world setting.”
Less is more
Sometimes, less can be more, said Mellar P. Davis, MD, an oncologist and section head of the palliative care department at Geisinger Medical System in Danville, Penn., who was not involved in this study.
“Why do patients benefit from small doses? It may be that there are fewer drug interruptions over time and patients are able to stay on schedule,” Dr. Davis said. “It may also be that erlotinib clearance is reduced in the elderly and comorbid patient. The reduced dose may, in fact, be the ‘therapeutic’ dose in this special population.”
Plasma levels were frequently in therapeutic ranges in this study, but patients who had subtherapeutic plasma levels also responded to therapy, Dr. Davis pointed out. The lower dose was shown to maintain sufficient concentrations of the treatment while reducing adverse effects.
However, Dr. Davis noted, this was not a randomized trial. “It is always a risk hedging bets on single-arm trials,” he said. “Randomized trials often prove phase 2 single-arm trials wrong.”
He added that quality-of-life measures are absent from the study. Erlotinib is a palliative drug with side effects, Dr. Davis noted.
“Control of cancer and cancer regression should improve symptoms and quality of life when balanced against treatment toxicity,” he said. “In this study, I would have thought that symptom improvement, performance score, and quality of life would have been the primary outcome or the co-primary outcome with disease control.”
Should a randomized, controlled trial of low-dose erlotinib be conducted in the frail/elderly population? “If one believes trials should be quantitatively based, the answer would be no,” Dr. Davis said. “Responses may be the same, and it would be expensive to prove that low-dose erlotinib is the same as standard doses when comparing survival.”
However, if one is interested in quality of life, particularly in this growing population, a trial that incorporated quality-of-life measures would make more sense, according to Dr. Davis. “For if one can achieve less toxicity and treat more patients and get the same duration of clinical benefit, then less will be more,” he concluded.
Dr. Davis reported having no conflicts of interest. Study authors disclosed relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and many other companies. Erlotinib is manufactured for OSI Pharmaceuticals, an affiliate of Astellas Pharma, and distributed by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.
The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.
SOURCE: Miyamoto S et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 14; e201250. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1250.
, according to researchers.
They conducted a phase 2 trial to investigate whether one-third of the maximum tolerated dose of erlotinib could maintain sufficient plasma concentration of the drug while avoiding the adverse effects of higher doses. The results were published in JAMA Oncology.
Erlotinib and other epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have demonstrated efficacy in elderly patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC, according to study author Shingo Miyamoto, MD, of Japanese Red Cross Medical Center in Tokyo, and colleagues.
“With the increasing number of elderly patients with cancer, many of whom also have significant comorbidities, there is a considerable value in investigating whether EGFR-TKIs are effective for the frail population,” the authors wrote. They also noted that it is “difficult to identify the appropriate dose of molecular-targeted drugs.”
With this in mind, Dr. Miyamoto and colleagues conducted a single-arm, phase 2 trial of low-dose erlotinib in 80 chemotherapy-naive frail or elderly patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC. Frailty was defined by age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The patients’ median age was 80 years (range, 49-90 years).
Patients received erlotinib at 50 mg per day, which is one-third of the established maximum tolerated dose, for 4 weeks. Then, they were evaluated with radiologic imaging. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Dosing was modified by treatment response or by adverse events.
Results
At last follow-up, 7 of the 80 patients were still receiving low-dose erlotinib. Reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (n = 60), patient request (n = 6), adverse events (n = 4), and death (n = 3).
The overall response rate was 60%, and the disease control rate was 90%. The researchers measured plasma erlotinib concentration in 48 patients and found it did not correlate with response.
The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months, and the median overall survival was 26.2 months.
Ten patients had erlotinib temporarily suspended because of adverse events. Five patients had their dose reduced to 25 mg because of adverse events, including oral mucositis, paronychia, erythema multiforme, diarrhea, and anorexia.
Two patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. One patient had a cutaneous ulcer and bone infection. The other had oral mucositis.
Dr. Miyamoto and colleagues concluded that, “low-dose erlotinib was associated with efficacy and safety in frail patients with EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer. More research on the dosing strategy of target-based drugs is warranted, especially in frail patients in the real-world setting.”
Less is more
Sometimes, less can be more, said Mellar P. Davis, MD, an oncologist and section head of the palliative care department at Geisinger Medical System in Danville, Penn., who was not involved in this study.
“Why do patients benefit from small doses? It may be that there are fewer drug interruptions over time and patients are able to stay on schedule,” Dr. Davis said. “It may also be that erlotinib clearance is reduced in the elderly and comorbid patient. The reduced dose may, in fact, be the ‘therapeutic’ dose in this special population.”
Plasma levels were frequently in therapeutic ranges in this study, but patients who had subtherapeutic plasma levels also responded to therapy, Dr. Davis pointed out. The lower dose was shown to maintain sufficient concentrations of the treatment while reducing adverse effects.
However, Dr. Davis noted, this was not a randomized trial. “It is always a risk hedging bets on single-arm trials,” he said. “Randomized trials often prove phase 2 single-arm trials wrong.”
He added that quality-of-life measures are absent from the study. Erlotinib is a palliative drug with side effects, Dr. Davis noted.
“Control of cancer and cancer regression should improve symptoms and quality of life when balanced against treatment toxicity,” he said. “In this study, I would have thought that symptom improvement, performance score, and quality of life would have been the primary outcome or the co-primary outcome with disease control.”
Should a randomized, controlled trial of low-dose erlotinib be conducted in the frail/elderly population? “If one believes trials should be quantitatively based, the answer would be no,” Dr. Davis said. “Responses may be the same, and it would be expensive to prove that low-dose erlotinib is the same as standard doses when comparing survival.”
However, if one is interested in quality of life, particularly in this growing population, a trial that incorporated quality-of-life measures would make more sense, according to Dr. Davis. “For if one can achieve less toxicity and treat more patients and get the same duration of clinical benefit, then less will be more,” he concluded.
Dr. Davis reported having no conflicts of interest. Study authors disclosed relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and many other companies. Erlotinib is manufactured for OSI Pharmaceuticals, an affiliate of Astellas Pharma, and distributed by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.
The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.
SOURCE: Miyamoto S et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 14; e201250. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1250.
, according to researchers.
They conducted a phase 2 trial to investigate whether one-third of the maximum tolerated dose of erlotinib could maintain sufficient plasma concentration of the drug while avoiding the adverse effects of higher doses. The results were published in JAMA Oncology.
Erlotinib and other epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have demonstrated efficacy in elderly patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC, according to study author Shingo Miyamoto, MD, of Japanese Red Cross Medical Center in Tokyo, and colleagues.
“With the increasing number of elderly patients with cancer, many of whom also have significant comorbidities, there is a considerable value in investigating whether EGFR-TKIs are effective for the frail population,” the authors wrote. They also noted that it is “difficult to identify the appropriate dose of molecular-targeted drugs.”
With this in mind, Dr. Miyamoto and colleagues conducted a single-arm, phase 2 trial of low-dose erlotinib in 80 chemotherapy-naive frail or elderly patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC. Frailty was defined by age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The patients’ median age was 80 years (range, 49-90 years).
Patients received erlotinib at 50 mg per day, which is one-third of the established maximum tolerated dose, for 4 weeks. Then, they were evaluated with radiologic imaging. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Dosing was modified by treatment response or by adverse events.
Results
At last follow-up, 7 of the 80 patients were still receiving low-dose erlotinib. Reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (n = 60), patient request (n = 6), adverse events (n = 4), and death (n = 3).
The overall response rate was 60%, and the disease control rate was 90%. The researchers measured plasma erlotinib concentration in 48 patients and found it did not correlate with response.
The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months, and the median overall survival was 26.2 months.
Ten patients had erlotinib temporarily suspended because of adverse events. Five patients had their dose reduced to 25 mg because of adverse events, including oral mucositis, paronychia, erythema multiforme, diarrhea, and anorexia.
Two patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. One patient had a cutaneous ulcer and bone infection. The other had oral mucositis.
Dr. Miyamoto and colleagues concluded that, “low-dose erlotinib was associated with efficacy and safety in frail patients with EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer. More research on the dosing strategy of target-based drugs is warranted, especially in frail patients in the real-world setting.”
Less is more
Sometimes, less can be more, said Mellar P. Davis, MD, an oncologist and section head of the palliative care department at Geisinger Medical System in Danville, Penn., who was not involved in this study.
“Why do patients benefit from small doses? It may be that there are fewer drug interruptions over time and patients are able to stay on schedule,” Dr. Davis said. “It may also be that erlotinib clearance is reduced in the elderly and comorbid patient. The reduced dose may, in fact, be the ‘therapeutic’ dose in this special population.”
Plasma levels were frequently in therapeutic ranges in this study, but patients who had subtherapeutic plasma levels also responded to therapy, Dr. Davis pointed out. The lower dose was shown to maintain sufficient concentrations of the treatment while reducing adverse effects.
However, Dr. Davis noted, this was not a randomized trial. “It is always a risk hedging bets on single-arm trials,” he said. “Randomized trials often prove phase 2 single-arm trials wrong.”
He added that quality-of-life measures are absent from the study. Erlotinib is a palliative drug with side effects, Dr. Davis noted.
“Control of cancer and cancer regression should improve symptoms and quality of life when balanced against treatment toxicity,” he said. “In this study, I would have thought that symptom improvement, performance score, and quality of life would have been the primary outcome or the co-primary outcome with disease control.”
Should a randomized, controlled trial of low-dose erlotinib be conducted in the frail/elderly population? “If one believes trials should be quantitatively based, the answer would be no,” Dr. Davis said. “Responses may be the same, and it would be expensive to prove that low-dose erlotinib is the same as standard doses when comparing survival.”
However, if one is interested in quality of life, particularly in this growing population, a trial that incorporated quality-of-life measures would make more sense, according to Dr. Davis. “For if one can achieve less toxicity and treat more patients and get the same duration of clinical benefit, then less will be more,” he concluded.
Dr. Davis reported having no conflicts of interest. Study authors disclosed relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and many other companies. Erlotinib is manufactured for OSI Pharmaceuticals, an affiliate of Astellas Pharma, and distributed by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.
The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.
SOURCE: Miyamoto S et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 14; e201250. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1250.
FDA approves olaparib for certain metastatic prostate cancers
The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone.
Olaparib becomes the second PARP inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in prostate cancer this week. Earlier, rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic).
Olaparib is also indicated for use in ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancers.
The FDA also approved two companion diagnostic devices for treatment with olaparib: the FoundationOne CDx test (Foundation Medicine) for the selection of patients carrying HRR gene alterations and the BRACAnalysis CDx test (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) for the selection of patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 alterations.
The approval was based on results from the open-label, multicenter PROfound trial, which randomly assigned 387 patients to olaparib 300 mg twice daily and to investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate. All patients received a GnRH analogue or had prior bilateral orchiectomy.
The study involved two cohorts. Patients with mutations in either BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM were randomly assigned in cohort A (n = 245); patients with mutations among 12 other genes involved in the HRR pathway were randomly assigned in cohort B (n = 142); those with co-mutations were assigned to cohort A.
The major efficacy outcome of the trial was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) (cohort A).
In cohort A, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 7.4 months vs 3.6 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; P < .0001). Median overall survival was 19.1 months vs 14.7 months (HR, 0.69; P = .0175) and the overall response rate was 33% vs 2% (P < .0001).
In cohort A+B, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 5.8 months vs 3.5 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (HR, 0.49; P < .0001).
The study results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At that time, study investigator Maha Hussain, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said the rPFS result and other outcomes were a “remarkable achievement” in such heavily pretreated patients with prostate cancer.
Patients with prostate cancer should now undergo genetic testing of tumor tissue to identify the roughly 30% of patients who can benefit – as is already routinely being done for breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, said experts at ESMO.
The most common adverse reactions with olaparib (≥10% of patients) were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), decreased appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, cough, and dyspnea. Venous thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism, occurred in 7% of patients randomly assigned to olaparib, compared with 3.1% of those receiving investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone.
Olaparib carries the warning that myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) occurred in <1.5% of patients exposed to it as a monotherapy, and that the majority of events had a fatal outcome.
The recommended olaparib dose is 300 mg taken orally twice daily, with or without food.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone.
Olaparib becomes the second PARP inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in prostate cancer this week. Earlier, rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic).
Olaparib is also indicated for use in ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancers.
The FDA also approved two companion diagnostic devices for treatment with olaparib: the FoundationOne CDx test (Foundation Medicine) for the selection of patients carrying HRR gene alterations and the BRACAnalysis CDx test (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) for the selection of patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 alterations.
The approval was based on results from the open-label, multicenter PROfound trial, which randomly assigned 387 patients to olaparib 300 mg twice daily and to investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate. All patients received a GnRH analogue or had prior bilateral orchiectomy.
The study involved two cohorts. Patients with mutations in either BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM were randomly assigned in cohort A (n = 245); patients with mutations among 12 other genes involved in the HRR pathway were randomly assigned in cohort B (n = 142); those with co-mutations were assigned to cohort A.
The major efficacy outcome of the trial was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) (cohort A).
In cohort A, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 7.4 months vs 3.6 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; P < .0001). Median overall survival was 19.1 months vs 14.7 months (HR, 0.69; P = .0175) and the overall response rate was 33% vs 2% (P < .0001).
In cohort A+B, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 5.8 months vs 3.5 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (HR, 0.49; P < .0001).
The study results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At that time, study investigator Maha Hussain, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said the rPFS result and other outcomes were a “remarkable achievement” in such heavily pretreated patients with prostate cancer.
Patients with prostate cancer should now undergo genetic testing of tumor tissue to identify the roughly 30% of patients who can benefit – as is already routinely being done for breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, said experts at ESMO.
The most common adverse reactions with olaparib (≥10% of patients) were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), decreased appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, cough, and dyspnea. Venous thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism, occurred in 7% of patients randomly assigned to olaparib, compared with 3.1% of those receiving investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone.
Olaparib carries the warning that myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) occurred in <1.5% of patients exposed to it as a monotherapy, and that the majority of events had a fatal outcome.
The recommended olaparib dose is 300 mg taken orally twice daily, with or without food.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone.
Olaparib becomes the second PARP inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in prostate cancer this week. Earlier, rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic).
Olaparib is also indicated for use in ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancers.
The FDA also approved two companion diagnostic devices for treatment with olaparib: the FoundationOne CDx test (Foundation Medicine) for the selection of patients carrying HRR gene alterations and the BRACAnalysis CDx test (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) for the selection of patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 alterations.
The approval was based on results from the open-label, multicenter PROfound trial, which randomly assigned 387 patients to olaparib 300 mg twice daily and to investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate. All patients received a GnRH analogue or had prior bilateral orchiectomy.
The study involved two cohorts. Patients with mutations in either BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM were randomly assigned in cohort A (n = 245); patients with mutations among 12 other genes involved in the HRR pathway were randomly assigned in cohort B (n = 142); those with co-mutations were assigned to cohort A.
The major efficacy outcome of the trial was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) (cohort A).
In cohort A, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 7.4 months vs 3.6 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; P < .0001). Median overall survival was 19.1 months vs 14.7 months (HR, 0.69; P = .0175) and the overall response rate was 33% vs 2% (P < .0001).
In cohort A+B, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 5.8 months vs 3.5 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (HR, 0.49; P < .0001).
The study results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At that time, study investigator Maha Hussain, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said the rPFS result and other outcomes were a “remarkable achievement” in such heavily pretreated patients with prostate cancer.
Patients with prostate cancer should now undergo genetic testing of tumor tissue to identify the roughly 30% of patients who can benefit – as is already routinely being done for breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, said experts at ESMO.
The most common adverse reactions with olaparib (≥10% of patients) were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), decreased appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, cough, and dyspnea. Venous thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism, occurred in 7% of patients randomly assigned to olaparib, compared with 3.1% of those receiving investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone.
Olaparib carries the warning that myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) occurred in <1.5% of patients exposed to it as a monotherapy, and that the majority of events had a fatal outcome.
The recommended olaparib dose is 300 mg taken orally twice daily, with or without food.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA expands approval of atezolizumab in NSCLC
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approved indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Atezolizumab is now approved as first-line monotherapy for adults with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are EGFR and ALK wild-type but have high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 stained ≥50% of tumor cells or PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering ≥10% of the tumor area).
The FDA also approved the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with NSCLC who are eligible for treatment with atezolizumab.
The drug was evaluated in the IMpower110 trial (NCT02409342), which enrolled patients with stage IV, PD-L1–positive (tumor cells [TC] ≥1% or immune cells [IC] ≥1%) NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease.
The patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 286) or platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 263), which consisted of carboplatin or cisplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Overall survival was superior in the atezolizumab arm, but only among patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%). The median overall survival was 20.2 months among PD-L1–high patients in the atezolizumab arm and 13.1 months among PD-L1–high patients in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms for patients in the other two PD-L1 subgroups – TC ≥5% or IC ≥5% and TC ≥1% or IC ≥1%.
Serious adverse events occurred in 28% of patients receiving atezolizumab. The most frequent of these were pneumonia (2.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.1%), and pneumonitis (2.1%). Fatal adverse events in the atezolizumab arm included unexplained death, aspiration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, mechanical ileus, sepsis, cerebral infraction, and device occlusion (one patient each).
For more details on atezolizumab, see the full prescribing information.
The FDA has granted the approval of atezolizumab to Genentech and the approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay to Ventana Medical Systems.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approved indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Atezolizumab is now approved as first-line monotherapy for adults with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are EGFR and ALK wild-type but have high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 stained ≥50% of tumor cells or PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering ≥10% of the tumor area).
The FDA also approved the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with NSCLC who are eligible for treatment with atezolizumab.
The drug was evaluated in the IMpower110 trial (NCT02409342), which enrolled patients with stage IV, PD-L1–positive (tumor cells [TC] ≥1% or immune cells [IC] ≥1%) NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease.
The patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 286) or platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 263), which consisted of carboplatin or cisplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Overall survival was superior in the atezolizumab arm, but only among patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%). The median overall survival was 20.2 months among PD-L1–high patients in the atezolizumab arm and 13.1 months among PD-L1–high patients in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms for patients in the other two PD-L1 subgroups – TC ≥5% or IC ≥5% and TC ≥1% or IC ≥1%.
Serious adverse events occurred in 28% of patients receiving atezolizumab. The most frequent of these were pneumonia (2.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.1%), and pneumonitis (2.1%). Fatal adverse events in the atezolizumab arm included unexplained death, aspiration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, mechanical ileus, sepsis, cerebral infraction, and device occlusion (one patient each).
For more details on atezolizumab, see the full prescribing information.
The FDA has granted the approval of atezolizumab to Genentech and the approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay to Ventana Medical Systems.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approved indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Atezolizumab is now approved as first-line monotherapy for adults with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are EGFR and ALK wild-type but have high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 stained ≥50% of tumor cells or PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering ≥10% of the tumor area).
The FDA also approved the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with NSCLC who are eligible for treatment with atezolizumab.
The drug was evaluated in the IMpower110 trial (NCT02409342), which enrolled patients with stage IV, PD-L1–positive (tumor cells [TC] ≥1% or immune cells [IC] ≥1%) NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease.
The patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 286) or platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 263), which consisted of carboplatin or cisplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Overall survival was superior in the atezolizumab arm, but only among patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%). The median overall survival was 20.2 months among PD-L1–high patients in the atezolizumab arm and 13.1 months among PD-L1–high patients in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms for patients in the other two PD-L1 subgroups – TC ≥5% or IC ≥5% and TC ≥1% or IC ≥1%.
Serious adverse events occurred in 28% of patients receiving atezolizumab. The most frequent of these were pneumonia (2.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.1%), and pneumonitis (2.1%). Fatal adverse events in the atezolizumab arm included unexplained death, aspiration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, mechanical ileus, sepsis, cerebral infraction, and device occlusion (one patient each).
For more details on atezolizumab, see the full prescribing information.
The FDA has granted the approval of atezolizumab to Genentech and the approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay to Ventana Medical Systems.
DOACs linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin in AFib patients
results of a recent population-based cohort study show.
The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.
This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.
“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.
The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.
Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.
“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.
There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.
“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.
The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.
In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.
DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.
Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.
“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”
The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.
The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.
“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.
Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).
Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.
SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.
results of a recent population-based cohort study show.
The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.
This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.
“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.
The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.
Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.
“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.
There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.
“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.
The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.
In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.
DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.
Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.
“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”
The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.
The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.
“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.
Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).
Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.
SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.
results of a recent population-based cohort study show.
The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.
This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.
“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.
The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.
Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.
“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.
There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.
“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.
The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.
In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.
DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.
Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.
“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”
The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.
The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.
“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.
Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).
Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.
SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE