User login
The cloudy role of cannabis as a neuropsychiatric treatment
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Superior survival with sintilimab in squamous NSCLC
Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).
ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.
Results: Survival and safety
Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).
At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.
The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.
The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.
“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).
Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.
Use in the real world
Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.
Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.
“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.
When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”
Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.
ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.
Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).
ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.
Results: Survival and safety
Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).
At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.
The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.
The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.
“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).
Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.
Use in the real world
Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.
Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.
“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.
When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”
Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.
ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.
Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).
ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.
Results: Survival and safety
Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).
At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.
The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.
The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.
“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).
Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.
Use in the real world
Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.
Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.
“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.
When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”
Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.
ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.
FROM AACR 2021
Pfizer developing pill to treat COVID-19 symptoms
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Some MS treatments may heighten COVID risk
, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.
Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.
The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.
The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.
Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.
The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.
The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.
To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).
Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).
Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.
Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.
The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.
The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.
Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.
The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.
The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.
To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).
Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).
Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.
Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.
The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.
The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.
Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.
The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.
The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.
To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).
Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).
Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
FROM AAN 2021
Line of therapy matters for assessing biologic’s serious infection risk in RA
The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.
According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.
The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.
“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.
“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.
To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.
Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.
Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.
Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.
Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).
“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.
“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.
“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.
There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.
Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.
The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.
According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.
The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.
“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.
“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.
To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.
Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.
Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.
Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.
Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).
“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.
“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.
“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.
There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.
Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.
The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.
According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.
The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.
“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.
“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.
To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.
Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.
Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.
Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.
Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).
“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.
“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.
“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.
There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.
Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.
FROM BSR 2021
Survival benefit with nivolumab extends to 5 years in NSCLC
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Psilocybin matches SSRI for moderate to severe depression in phase 2 study
The psychedelic drug psilocybin performed just as well as a widely used antidepressant in easing the symptoms of major depression, and outperformed the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on a range of secondary measures, results of a small-scale, phase 2 study show.
In a 6-week trial that included 59 patients with moderate to severe depression, there was no significant difference between the impact of high-dose psilocybin on the study’s primary yardstick – the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report – and that of the SSRI escitalopram.
Patients in the psilocybin cohort did show a much more rapid improvement in the main measure than those taking escitalopram, but this gap narrowed over the span of the trial until it was no longer statistically significant.
“It’s very clear that psilocybin therapy has a faster antidepressant onset than escitalopram. And psilocybin was consistently superior on the ancillary outcomes, but it wasn’t different on the primary,” the study’s lead author Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, told reporters attending a news briefing.
Results of the phase 2, double-blind, randomized study were published online April 15, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Secondary outcomes
Investigators found that psilocybin bested escitalopram in several secondary outcomes, including feelings of well-being, the ability to express emotion, and social functioning.
Still, Larger and longer trials are required.
“But the secondaries were highly suggestive – tantalizingly suggestive – of the potential superiority of psilocybin therapy to treat not just depression, but these ancillary symptoms,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
After they were selected from 1000 screening calls, the 59 patients were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin and 29 patients to receive escitalopram. Every procedure was mirrored in both groups.
At the 2 “dosing days” scheduled during the 6-week trial, all patients received an oral dose of psilocybin in a clinical setting. However, the escitalopram group received 1 mg versus 25 mg for the psilocybin group.
“And the reason why we did that is because we can standardize expectation. We say to everyone, you will receive psilocybin. It’s just the dosage might differ,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
He conceded that most patients – though not all – were able to determine which group they were in following the first dosing day based on the drugs’ effects.
Supportive therapy
Following the oral dose, volunteers would spend 6 hours reclining on a bed, surrounded by pillows and a curated selection of music and supported by two “guides” or therapists. The guides were on hand to support patients through their psychedelic experience but did not chat or otherwise interfere.
The next day, patients attended a session with their two therapists to talk through their experiences.
Between dosing days, patients in the high-dose psilocybin group would take daily capsules containing a placebo. The low-dose group received a course of escitalopram.
The incidence of adverse effects was similar in each group. None was serious.
The study’s principal investigator David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that many patients in the psilocybin group reported revelatory insights during dosing days.
“Very often, for the first time, people have actually come to understand why they’re depressed,” he said.
The word psychedelic, coined in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derives from the Greek words “psyche,” which means “soul” or “mind,” and “delos,” which means “reveal.”
'Profound experiences'
Certainly, patients in the psilocybin group received enough of the compound to induce what Dr. Carhart-Harris called “very profound experiences.”
The researchers said that the results, while promising, should not encourage anyone to self-medicate with psychedelic substances, which are still illegal in most jurisdictions.
“I view this very much – and I think most colleagues do as well – as a combination treatment,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “And we strongly believe that the psychotherapy component is as important as the drug action.”
He said the study was inspired by his earlier research into the effects of psilocybin on brain function along with a small open-label trial of the compound’s effects on treatment-resistant depression published in The Lancet Psychiatry in July 2016.
The team stressed that the cohort and the absence of an entirely placebo group limit conclusions that can be drawn about either treatment.
Dr. Carhart-Harris also said he would have liked a more diverse group of patients. Participants were mostly White and mostly male, with a mean age of 41, and a high educational attainment. Of the 59 enrolled, only 34% were women.
Volunteers underwent functional MRI scans at the start and end of the trial. The team will now analyze these results to gain insight into impact on brain function and will gather and assess follow-up data. They also plan a trial examining the effect of psilocybin on anorexia.
“I think it’s fair to say the results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “It’s often said that we need novel treatments to treat depression because too many new drugs are what [are] sometimes called ‘me too’ drugs: They work in the same way as drugs that have preceded them. Psilocybin therapy seems to work fundamentally in a different way to SSRIs.”
Unanswered questions
In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, warned that there remain many unanswered questions about using psychedelics for medical purposes.
They were considered potential miracle cures for a range of mental disorders in the 1960s, only to be banned in 1970s America because of “the perceived dangers and corrosive effects” on society, he wrote.
“The Carhart-Harris study notwithstanding, we are still awaiting definitive proof of the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics and their capacity to improve the human condition,” Dr. Lieberman wrote. “Should the mind-bending properties of the psychedelics prove to be the panacea their proponents professed, informed consent and safety standards must be established. How do we explain mystical, ineffable, and potentially transformative experiences to patients, particularly if they are in a vulnerable state of mind? What is their potential for addiction?”
David Owens, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of clinical psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh, described Lieberman’s comments as “spot on.”
“This is a small, exploratory study with numbers too small to analyze fully,” he said. “The population is not recruited randomly from, for example, consecutive admissions or presentations, and screening of volunteers was by telephone, not face to face. One might say this is an ‘interested’ population, willing to go for novel approaches and with no placebo group, the extent of the placebo response cannot be assessed.”
The study was funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and the founders of the Centre for Psychedelic Research. Infrastructure support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The psychedelic drug psilocybin performed just as well as a widely used antidepressant in easing the symptoms of major depression, and outperformed the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on a range of secondary measures, results of a small-scale, phase 2 study show.
In a 6-week trial that included 59 patients with moderate to severe depression, there was no significant difference between the impact of high-dose psilocybin on the study’s primary yardstick – the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report – and that of the SSRI escitalopram.
Patients in the psilocybin cohort did show a much more rapid improvement in the main measure than those taking escitalopram, but this gap narrowed over the span of the trial until it was no longer statistically significant.
“It’s very clear that psilocybin therapy has a faster antidepressant onset than escitalopram. And psilocybin was consistently superior on the ancillary outcomes, but it wasn’t different on the primary,” the study’s lead author Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, told reporters attending a news briefing.
Results of the phase 2, double-blind, randomized study were published online April 15, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Secondary outcomes
Investigators found that psilocybin bested escitalopram in several secondary outcomes, including feelings of well-being, the ability to express emotion, and social functioning.
Still, Larger and longer trials are required.
“But the secondaries were highly suggestive – tantalizingly suggestive – of the potential superiority of psilocybin therapy to treat not just depression, but these ancillary symptoms,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
After they were selected from 1000 screening calls, the 59 patients were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin and 29 patients to receive escitalopram. Every procedure was mirrored in both groups.
At the 2 “dosing days” scheduled during the 6-week trial, all patients received an oral dose of psilocybin in a clinical setting. However, the escitalopram group received 1 mg versus 25 mg for the psilocybin group.
“And the reason why we did that is because we can standardize expectation. We say to everyone, you will receive psilocybin. It’s just the dosage might differ,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
He conceded that most patients – though not all – were able to determine which group they were in following the first dosing day based on the drugs’ effects.
Supportive therapy
Following the oral dose, volunteers would spend 6 hours reclining on a bed, surrounded by pillows and a curated selection of music and supported by two “guides” or therapists. The guides were on hand to support patients through their psychedelic experience but did not chat or otherwise interfere.
The next day, patients attended a session with their two therapists to talk through their experiences.
Between dosing days, patients in the high-dose psilocybin group would take daily capsules containing a placebo. The low-dose group received a course of escitalopram.
The incidence of adverse effects was similar in each group. None was serious.
The study’s principal investigator David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that many patients in the psilocybin group reported revelatory insights during dosing days.
“Very often, for the first time, people have actually come to understand why they’re depressed,” he said.
The word psychedelic, coined in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derives from the Greek words “psyche,” which means “soul” or “mind,” and “delos,” which means “reveal.”
'Profound experiences'
Certainly, patients in the psilocybin group received enough of the compound to induce what Dr. Carhart-Harris called “very profound experiences.”
The researchers said that the results, while promising, should not encourage anyone to self-medicate with psychedelic substances, which are still illegal in most jurisdictions.
“I view this very much – and I think most colleagues do as well – as a combination treatment,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “And we strongly believe that the psychotherapy component is as important as the drug action.”
He said the study was inspired by his earlier research into the effects of psilocybin on brain function along with a small open-label trial of the compound’s effects on treatment-resistant depression published in The Lancet Psychiatry in July 2016.
The team stressed that the cohort and the absence of an entirely placebo group limit conclusions that can be drawn about either treatment.
Dr. Carhart-Harris also said he would have liked a more diverse group of patients. Participants were mostly White and mostly male, with a mean age of 41, and a high educational attainment. Of the 59 enrolled, only 34% were women.
Volunteers underwent functional MRI scans at the start and end of the trial. The team will now analyze these results to gain insight into impact on brain function and will gather and assess follow-up data. They also plan a trial examining the effect of psilocybin on anorexia.
“I think it’s fair to say the results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “It’s often said that we need novel treatments to treat depression because too many new drugs are what [are] sometimes called ‘me too’ drugs: They work in the same way as drugs that have preceded them. Psilocybin therapy seems to work fundamentally in a different way to SSRIs.”
Unanswered questions
In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, warned that there remain many unanswered questions about using psychedelics for medical purposes.
They were considered potential miracle cures for a range of mental disorders in the 1960s, only to be banned in 1970s America because of “the perceived dangers and corrosive effects” on society, he wrote.
“The Carhart-Harris study notwithstanding, we are still awaiting definitive proof of the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics and their capacity to improve the human condition,” Dr. Lieberman wrote. “Should the mind-bending properties of the psychedelics prove to be the panacea their proponents professed, informed consent and safety standards must be established. How do we explain mystical, ineffable, and potentially transformative experiences to patients, particularly if they are in a vulnerable state of mind? What is their potential for addiction?”
David Owens, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of clinical psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh, described Lieberman’s comments as “spot on.”
“This is a small, exploratory study with numbers too small to analyze fully,” he said. “The population is not recruited randomly from, for example, consecutive admissions or presentations, and screening of volunteers was by telephone, not face to face. One might say this is an ‘interested’ population, willing to go for novel approaches and with no placebo group, the extent of the placebo response cannot be assessed.”
The study was funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and the founders of the Centre for Psychedelic Research. Infrastructure support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The psychedelic drug psilocybin performed just as well as a widely used antidepressant in easing the symptoms of major depression, and outperformed the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on a range of secondary measures, results of a small-scale, phase 2 study show.
In a 6-week trial that included 59 patients with moderate to severe depression, there was no significant difference between the impact of high-dose psilocybin on the study’s primary yardstick – the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report – and that of the SSRI escitalopram.
Patients in the psilocybin cohort did show a much more rapid improvement in the main measure than those taking escitalopram, but this gap narrowed over the span of the trial until it was no longer statistically significant.
“It’s very clear that psilocybin therapy has a faster antidepressant onset than escitalopram. And psilocybin was consistently superior on the ancillary outcomes, but it wasn’t different on the primary,” the study’s lead author Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, told reporters attending a news briefing.
Results of the phase 2, double-blind, randomized study were published online April 15, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Secondary outcomes
Investigators found that psilocybin bested escitalopram in several secondary outcomes, including feelings of well-being, the ability to express emotion, and social functioning.
Still, Larger and longer trials are required.
“But the secondaries were highly suggestive – tantalizingly suggestive – of the potential superiority of psilocybin therapy to treat not just depression, but these ancillary symptoms,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
After they were selected from 1000 screening calls, the 59 patients were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin and 29 patients to receive escitalopram. Every procedure was mirrored in both groups.
At the 2 “dosing days” scheduled during the 6-week trial, all patients received an oral dose of psilocybin in a clinical setting. However, the escitalopram group received 1 mg versus 25 mg for the psilocybin group.
“And the reason why we did that is because we can standardize expectation. We say to everyone, you will receive psilocybin. It’s just the dosage might differ,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
He conceded that most patients – though not all – were able to determine which group they were in following the first dosing day based on the drugs’ effects.
Supportive therapy
Following the oral dose, volunteers would spend 6 hours reclining on a bed, surrounded by pillows and a curated selection of music and supported by two “guides” or therapists. The guides were on hand to support patients through their psychedelic experience but did not chat or otherwise interfere.
The next day, patients attended a session with their two therapists to talk through their experiences.
Between dosing days, patients in the high-dose psilocybin group would take daily capsules containing a placebo. The low-dose group received a course of escitalopram.
The incidence of adverse effects was similar in each group. None was serious.
The study’s principal investigator David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that many patients in the psilocybin group reported revelatory insights during dosing days.
“Very often, for the first time, people have actually come to understand why they’re depressed,” he said.
The word psychedelic, coined in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derives from the Greek words “psyche,” which means “soul” or “mind,” and “delos,” which means “reveal.”
'Profound experiences'
Certainly, patients in the psilocybin group received enough of the compound to induce what Dr. Carhart-Harris called “very profound experiences.”
The researchers said that the results, while promising, should not encourage anyone to self-medicate with psychedelic substances, which are still illegal in most jurisdictions.
“I view this very much – and I think most colleagues do as well – as a combination treatment,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “And we strongly believe that the psychotherapy component is as important as the drug action.”
He said the study was inspired by his earlier research into the effects of psilocybin on brain function along with a small open-label trial of the compound’s effects on treatment-resistant depression published in The Lancet Psychiatry in July 2016.
The team stressed that the cohort and the absence of an entirely placebo group limit conclusions that can be drawn about either treatment.
Dr. Carhart-Harris also said he would have liked a more diverse group of patients. Participants were mostly White and mostly male, with a mean age of 41, and a high educational attainment. Of the 59 enrolled, only 34% were women.
Volunteers underwent functional MRI scans at the start and end of the trial. The team will now analyze these results to gain insight into impact on brain function and will gather and assess follow-up data. They also plan a trial examining the effect of psilocybin on anorexia.
“I think it’s fair to say the results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “It’s often said that we need novel treatments to treat depression because too many new drugs are what [are] sometimes called ‘me too’ drugs: They work in the same way as drugs that have preceded them. Psilocybin therapy seems to work fundamentally in a different way to SSRIs.”
Unanswered questions
In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, warned that there remain many unanswered questions about using psychedelics for medical purposes.
They were considered potential miracle cures for a range of mental disorders in the 1960s, only to be banned in 1970s America because of “the perceived dangers and corrosive effects” on society, he wrote.
“The Carhart-Harris study notwithstanding, we are still awaiting definitive proof of the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics and their capacity to improve the human condition,” Dr. Lieberman wrote. “Should the mind-bending properties of the psychedelics prove to be the panacea their proponents professed, informed consent and safety standards must be established. How do we explain mystical, ineffable, and potentially transformative experiences to patients, particularly if they are in a vulnerable state of mind? What is their potential for addiction?”
David Owens, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of clinical psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh, described Lieberman’s comments as “spot on.”
“This is a small, exploratory study with numbers too small to analyze fully,” he said. “The population is not recruited randomly from, for example, consecutive admissions or presentations, and screening of volunteers was by telephone, not face to face. One might say this is an ‘interested’ population, willing to go for novel approaches and with no placebo group, the extent of the placebo response cannot be assessed.”
The study was funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and the founders of the Centre for Psychedelic Research. Infrastructure support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transgender hormone therapy linked to blood pressure changes
Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.
“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.
“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”
Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females
In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.
The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.
Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.
There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.
“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.
The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.
Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.
For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.
They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.
In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.
Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.
As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.
The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.
In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.
The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.
Protective effects for transgender females?
Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.
“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.
“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.
Exceptions in both groups
Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.
Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.
Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.
“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.
The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ
Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.
In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.
The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.
Previous research supports cardiovascular risk
As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.
And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.
“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.
“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”
Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females
In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.
The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.
Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.
There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.
“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.
The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.
Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.
For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.
They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.
In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.
Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.
As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.
The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.
In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.
The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.
Protective effects for transgender females?
Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.
“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.
“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.
Exceptions in both groups
Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.
Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.
Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.
“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.
The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ
Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.
In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.
The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.
Previous research supports cardiovascular risk
As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.
And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.
“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.
“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”
Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females
In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.
The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.
Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.
There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.
“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.
The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.
Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.
For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.
They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.
In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.
Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.
As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.
The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.
In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.
The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.
Protective effects for transgender females?
Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.
“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.
“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.
Exceptions in both groups
Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.
Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.
Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.
“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.
The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ
Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.
In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.
The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.
Previous research supports cardiovascular risk
As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.
And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
GENUINE improvements: Ublituximab plus ibrutinib for CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study shows how COVID-19 disrupted RA meds
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH