Conference Coverage

Racial and socioeconomic disparities may be impeding access to newer diabetes medications among U.S. patients who may need them the most, according to researchers at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Initiation of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors was less likely among racial/ethnic minorities and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the retrospective analyses, leading the investigators to call for a better understanding of nonclinical factors that may be influencing treatment decisions.

Odds of new diabetes medication use were 55%-69% lower in patients in Medicare Advantage (MA) as compared to patients in commercial health plans, according to results of a separate study presented by Rozalina McCoy, MD, endocrinologist and researcher with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“The rates of use are increasing over time, but not enough in MA beneficiaries,” she said in her virtual presentation. “I think it really calls for more to be done to ensure access to and use of evidence based medications, by all people with type 2 diabetes.”

The likelihood of initiating a new diabetes drug was 29% lower among African Americans and 49% lower among Native Americans in a study of enrollees in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) randomized trial, according to researcher Ahmed Elhussein, BMBCh, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“This is particularly concerning, because they might have a greater need for these new diabetes medications, but reduced access,” Dr. Elhussein said in his presentation.

Disparities by race in diabetes drug use

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the United States is higher among racial and ethnic minorities, at about 12%-15%, versus about 7% in whites, according to Dr. Elhussein,

While the newer classes of diabetes medications have a lower risk of hyperglycemia and have cardiovascular and renal benefits, they also come at a higher cost, he added.

“This has created some concerns about access in particular for underserved groups,” he said in his presentation.

In their retrospective analysis, based on 4,892 patients enrolled in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) randomized trial, Dr. Elhussein and coinvestigators identified 44% who had initiated a newer diabetes medication over a median follow-up of about 8 years.

They found black race was associated with significantly lower initiation of newer medications compared to whites, with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.94; P = 0.019), after adjustment for socioeconomic status.

New diabetes medication use was also significantly lower among American Indian/Alaskan Natives, with an HR of 0.51 and a confidence interval that did not include the null value of 1, according to the investigator.

No significant differences in new diabetes drug use were seen in Hispanics or those classified as other race/ethnicity, he added.

“We’d advocate for more study to try to understand what are the drivers of this disparity,” he said. “This would let us develop interventions that might help to increase access in these patient groups that might need them the most.”

Insurance type and diabetes drugs

Second-line medications, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, have “preferred” efficacy and side effect profiles, but are more costly than older, generic options such as sulfonylureas, which may affect the likelihood of their use, said Dr. McCoy, the Mayo Clinic researcher and lead author of the study on diabetes medication use by insurance type.

They analyzed 1.7 million individuals in a de-identified dataset (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) who were either privately insured or beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to fee-for-service Medicare.

After adjusting for race/ethnicity, baseline medications, age, gender, and other factors, odds of new medication use were significantly lower in the Medicare Advantage group, according to Dr. McCoy.

Odds ratios ranged from 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.63) for DPP-4 inhibitors, to 0.45 (95% CI, 0.44-0.46) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and to 0.31 (95% CI, 0.30-0.31) for SGLT2 inhibitors, she reported.

“This may be driven by affordability, because patients with Medicare Advantage plans are not able to access prescription savings cards (as compared to Medicare beneficiaries) and they also are more likely to have fixed incomes and not be able to afford the high costs of these drugs,” she said.

Dr. Elhussein reported no disclosures related to the research, while co-authors provided disclosures related to Abbott, Bigfoot Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MannKind, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, and others. Dr McCoy likewise had no disclosures, while co-authors indicated disclosures related to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

SOURCES: ADA 2020. Authors: McCoy R et al (38-OR), and Elhussein A, et al (37-OR).
 

Racial and socioeconomic disparities may be impeding access to newer diabetes medications among U.S. patients who may need them the most, according to researchers at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Initiation of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors was less likely among racial/ethnic minorities and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the retrospective analyses, leading the investigators to call for a better understanding of nonclinical factors that may be influencing treatment decisions.

Odds of new diabetes medication use were 55%-69% lower in patients in Medicare Advantage (MA) as compared to patients in commercial health plans, according to results of a separate study presented by Rozalina McCoy, MD, endocrinologist and researcher with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“The rates of use are increasing over time, but not enough in MA beneficiaries,” she said in her virtual presentation. “I think it really calls for more to be done to ensure access to and use of evidence based medications, by all people with type 2 diabetes.”

The likelihood of initiating a new diabetes drug was 29% lower among African Americans and 49% lower among Native Americans in a study of enrollees in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) randomized trial, according to researcher Ahmed Elhussein, BMBCh, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“This is particularly concerning, because they might have a greater need for these new diabetes medications, but reduced access,” Dr. Elhussein said in his presentation.

Disparities by race in diabetes drug use

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the United States is higher among racial and ethnic minorities, at about 12%-15%, versus about 7% in whites, according to Dr. Elhussein,

While the newer classes of diabetes medications have a lower risk of hyperglycemia and have cardiovascular and renal benefits, they also come at a higher cost, he added.

“This has created some concerns about access in particular for underserved groups,” he said in his presentation.

In their retrospective analysis, based on 4,892 patients enrolled in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) randomized trial, Dr. Elhussein and coinvestigators identified 44% who had initiated a newer diabetes medication over a median follow-up of about 8 years.

They found black race was associated with significantly lower initiation of newer medications compared to whites, with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.94; P = 0.019), after adjustment for socioeconomic status.

New diabetes medication use was also significantly lower among American Indian/Alaskan Natives, with an HR of 0.51 and a confidence interval that did not include the null value of 1, according to the investigator.

No significant differences in new diabetes drug use were seen in Hispanics or those classified as other race/ethnicity, he added.

“We’d advocate for more study to try to understand what are the drivers of this disparity,” he said. “This would let us develop interventions that might help to increase access in these patient groups that might need them the most.”

Insurance type and diabetes drugs

Second-line medications, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, have “preferred” efficacy and side effect profiles, but are more costly than older, generic options such as sulfonylureas, which may affect the likelihood of their use, said Dr. McCoy, the Mayo Clinic researcher and lead author of the study on diabetes medication use by insurance type.

They analyzed 1.7 million individuals in a de-identified dataset (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) who were either privately insured or beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to fee-for-service Medicare.

After adjusting for race/ethnicity, baseline medications, age, gender, and other factors, odds of new medication use were significantly lower in the Medicare Advantage group, according to Dr. McCoy.

Odds ratios ranged from 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.63) for DPP-4 inhibitors, to 0.45 (95% CI, 0.44-0.46) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and to 0.31 (95% CI, 0.30-0.31) for SGLT2 inhibitors, she reported.

“This may be driven by affordability, because patients with Medicare Advantage plans are not able to access prescription savings cards (as compared to Medicare beneficiaries) and they also are more likely to have fixed incomes and not be able to afford the high costs of these drugs,” she said.

Dr. Elhussein reported no disclosures related to the research, while co-authors provided disclosures related to Abbott, Bigfoot Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MannKind, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, and others. Dr McCoy likewise had no disclosures, while co-authors indicated disclosures related to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

SOURCES: ADA 2020. Authors: McCoy R et al (38-OR), and Elhussein A, et al (37-OR).
 

Racial and socioeconomic disparities may be impeding access to newer diabetes medications among U.S. patients who may need them the most, according to researchers at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Initiation of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors was less likely among racial/ethnic minorities and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the retrospective analyses, leading the investigators to call for a better understanding of nonclinical factors that may be influencing treatment decisions.

Odds of new diabetes medication use were 55%-69% lower in patients in Medicare Advantage (MA) as compared to patients in commercial health plans, according to results of a separate study presented by Rozalina McCoy, MD, endocrinologist and researcher with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“The rates of use are increasing over time, but not enough in MA beneficiaries,” she said in her virtual presentation. “I think it really calls for more to be done to ensure access to and use of evidence based medications, by all people with type 2 diabetes.”

The likelihood of initiating a new diabetes drug was 29% lower among African Americans and 49% lower among Native Americans in a study of enrollees in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) randomized trial, according to researcher Ahmed Elhussein, BMBCh, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“This is particularly concerning, because they might have a greater need for these new diabetes medications, but reduced access,” Dr. Elhussein said in his presentation.

Disparities by race in diabetes drug use

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the United States is higher among racial and ethnic minorities, at about 12%-15%, versus about 7% in whites, according to Dr. Elhussein,

While the newer classes of diabetes medications have a lower risk of hyperglycemia and have cardiovascular and renal benefits, they also come at a higher cost, he added.

“This has created some concerns about access in particular for underserved groups,” he said in his presentation.

In their retrospective analysis, based on 4,892 patients enrolled in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) randomized trial, Dr. Elhussein and coinvestigators identified 44% who had initiated a newer diabetes medication over a median follow-up of about 8 years.

They found black race was associated with significantly lower initiation of newer medications compared to whites, with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.94; P = 0.019), after adjustment for socioeconomic status.

New diabetes medication use was also significantly lower among American Indian/Alaskan Natives, with an HR of 0.51 and a confidence interval that did not include the null value of 1, according to the investigator.

No significant differences in new diabetes drug use were seen in Hispanics or those classified as other race/ethnicity, he added.

“We’d advocate for more study to try to understand what are the drivers of this disparity,” he said. “This would let us develop interventions that might help to increase access in these patient groups that might need them the most.”

Insurance type and diabetes drugs

Second-line medications, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, have “preferred” efficacy and side effect profiles, but are more costly than older, generic options such as sulfonylureas, which may affect the likelihood of their use, said Dr. McCoy, the Mayo Clinic researcher and lead author of the study on diabetes medication use by insurance type.

They analyzed 1.7 million individuals in a de-identified dataset (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) who were either privately insured or beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to fee-for-service Medicare.

After adjusting for race/ethnicity, baseline medications, age, gender, and other factors, odds of new medication use were significantly lower in the Medicare Advantage group, according to Dr. McCoy.

Odds ratios ranged from 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.63) for DPP-4 inhibitors, to 0.45 (95% CI, 0.44-0.46) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and to 0.31 (95% CI, 0.30-0.31) for SGLT2 inhibitors, she reported.

“This may be driven by affordability, because patients with Medicare Advantage plans are not able to access prescription savings cards (as compared to Medicare beneficiaries) and they also are more likely to have fixed incomes and not be able to afford the high costs of these drugs,” she said.

Dr. Elhussein reported no disclosures related to the research, while co-authors provided disclosures related to Abbott, Bigfoot Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MannKind, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, and others. Dr McCoy likewise had no disclosures, while co-authors indicated disclosures related to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

SOURCES: ADA 2020. Authors: McCoy R et al (38-OR), and Elhussein A, et al (37-OR).
 

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin during the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a solidly reduced need to either start insulin treatment or intensify existing insulin treatment, compared with those given placebo, in a post-hoc analysis of the study’s findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Empagliflozin markedly and durably delayed the need for insulin initiation, and reduced the need for large dose increases in patients already using insulin,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The patients in the empagliflozin (Jardiance) arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME had a 9% rate of initiating insulin treatment after 4 years in the study, compared with a 20% rate among patients who received placebo, a statistically significant 60% relative risk reduction. All patients in the trial continued on their background oral glucose-lowering medications.

Among the 48% of study patients who entered the study already using insulin as part of their usual regimen, 18% of those receiving empagliflozin required a significant increase in their insulin dosage (an increase of at least 20% from baseline) after 4 years. But among the control patients, 35% needed this level of insulin-dosage intensification, again a statistically significant difference that computed to a 58% relative reduction in the need for boosting the insulin dosage.

For both of these endpoints, the divergence between the empagliflozin and control arms became apparent within the first 6 months on treatment, and the between-group differences steadily increased during further follow-up. The analyses pooled the patients who received empagliflozin in the trial, which studied two different dosages of the drug.

Results add to the ‘risk and benefit conversation’

“This is one of the first studies to look at this question in a more granular fashion” in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving a drug from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, said Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. It provides “compelling” information to include when discussing oral diabetes-drug options with patients, he said in an interview.

Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes “often think about insulin” and their potential need to eventually start taking it, with the requirements it brings for training, monitoring, and drug delivery, along with the costs for insulin and glucose monitoring. “Patients are very attuned to potentially needing insulin and often ask about it. A reduced need for insulin will be an important part of the risk and benefit conversation” with patients about potential use of an SGLT2 inhibitor, he said.

Dr. Vaduganathan hypothesized that three factors could contribute to the impact of empagliflozin on insulin initiation and dosage level: a direct glycemic-control effect of the drug, the drug’s positive impact on overall well-being and function that could enhance patient movement, and the documented ability of treatment with empagliflozin and other drugs in its class to cut the rate of heart failure hospitalizations. This last feature is potentially relevant because insulin treatment often starts in patients with type 2 diabetes during a hospitalization, he noted.
 

Handelsman: Analysis shows no ‘spectacular effect’

The association of empagliflozin treatment with a reduced need for insulin seen in these data is consistent with expectations for patients with type 2 diabetes who receive an additional oral drug, commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of American in Tarzana, Calif. “In large part it has to do with patients on placebo having to get more insulin” because their additional oral-drug options were limited. Dr. Handelsman pointed out that during the period when the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial ran, from 2010-2015, fewer oral drugs were available than today, and clinicians in the study were encouraged to treat patients to their goal glycemia level according to local guidelines. In addition to a modest but useful glycemic control effect from SGLT2 inhibitors that, on average, cut hemoglobin A_1c levels by about 0.5%, they may also give a small boost to insulin sensitivity that can also defer the need to add or increase insulin. The level of insulin-treatment deference reported in the new analysis was “not a spectacular effect” he said in an interview.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study followed 7,020 patients at 590 sites in 42 countries for a median of 3.1 years. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke, and the results showed a statistically significant 14% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin treatment (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ). The results also showed that 12 weeks into the study, before patients could receive any additional drugs, HbA_1c levels averaged 0.54%-0.6% lower among the empagliflozin-treated patients than those in the placebo arm, with smaller between-group differences maintained through the balance of the study. At entry, more than half the enrolled patients were routinely treated with metformin, and close to half were receiving a sulfonyurea agent.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME results were also notable as showing for the first time that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor drug produced a substantial decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, incident heart failure, and progression of renal dysfunction, effects subsequently confirmed and also found for other agents in this drug class.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME was funded in part by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim and to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 30-OR.

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin during the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a solidly reduced need to either start insulin treatment or intensify existing insulin treatment, compared with those given placebo, in a post-hoc analysis of the study’s findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Empagliflozin markedly and durably delayed the need for insulin initiation, and reduced the need for large dose increases in patients already using insulin,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The patients in the empagliflozin (Jardiance) arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME had a 9% rate of initiating insulin treatment after 4 years in the study, compared with a 20% rate among patients who received placebo, a statistically significant 60% relative risk reduction. All patients in the trial continued on their background oral glucose-lowering medications.

Among the 48% of study patients who entered the study already using insulin as part of their usual regimen, 18% of those receiving empagliflozin required a significant increase in their insulin dosage (an increase of at least 20% from baseline) after 4 years. But among the control patients, 35% needed this level of insulin-dosage intensification, again a statistically significant difference that computed to a 58% relative reduction in the need for boosting the insulin dosage.

For both of these endpoints, the divergence between the empagliflozin and control arms became apparent within the first 6 months on treatment, and the between-group differences steadily increased during further follow-up. The analyses pooled the patients who received empagliflozin in the trial, which studied two different dosages of the drug.

Results add to the ‘risk and benefit conversation’

“This is one of the first studies to look at this question in a more granular fashion” in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving a drug from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, said Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. It provides “compelling” information to include when discussing oral diabetes-drug options with patients, he said in an interview.

Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes “often think about insulin” and their potential need to eventually start taking it, with the requirements it brings for training, monitoring, and drug delivery, along with the costs for insulin and glucose monitoring. “Patients are very attuned to potentially needing insulin and often ask about it. A reduced need for insulin will be an important part of the risk and benefit conversation” with patients about potential use of an SGLT2 inhibitor, he said.

Dr. Vaduganathan hypothesized that three factors could contribute to the impact of empagliflozin on insulin initiation and dosage level: a direct glycemic-control effect of the drug, the drug’s positive impact on overall well-being and function that could enhance patient movement, and the documented ability of treatment with empagliflozin and other drugs in its class to cut the rate of heart failure hospitalizations. This last feature is potentially relevant because insulin treatment often starts in patients with type 2 diabetes during a hospitalization, he noted.
 

Handelsman: Analysis shows no ‘spectacular effect’

The association of empagliflozin treatment with a reduced need for insulin seen in these data is consistent with expectations for patients with type 2 diabetes who receive an additional oral drug, commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of American in Tarzana, Calif. “In large part it has to do with patients on placebo having to get more insulin” because their additional oral-drug options were limited. Dr. Handelsman pointed out that during the period when the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial ran, from 2010-2015, fewer oral drugs were available than today, and clinicians in the study were encouraged to treat patients to their goal glycemia level according to local guidelines. In addition to a modest but useful glycemic control effect from SGLT2 inhibitors that, on average, cut hemoglobin A_1c levels by about 0.5%, they may also give a small boost to insulin sensitivity that can also defer the need to add or increase insulin. The level of insulin-treatment deference reported in the new analysis was “not a spectacular effect” he said in an interview.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study followed 7,020 patients at 590 sites in 42 countries for a median of 3.1 years. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke, and the results showed a statistically significant 14% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin treatment (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ). The results also showed that 12 weeks into the study, before patients could receive any additional drugs, HbA_1c levels averaged 0.54%-0.6% lower among the empagliflozin-treated patients than those in the placebo arm, with smaller between-group differences maintained through the balance of the study. At entry, more than half the enrolled patients were routinely treated with metformin, and close to half were receiving a sulfonyurea agent.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME results were also notable as showing for the first time that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor drug produced a substantial decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, incident heart failure, and progression of renal dysfunction, effects subsequently confirmed and also found for other agents in this drug class.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME was funded in part by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim and to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 30-OR.

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin during the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a solidly reduced need to either start insulin treatment or intensify existing insulin treatment, compared with those given placebo, in a post-hoc analysis of the study’s findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Empagliflozin markedly and durably delayed the need for insulin initiation, and reduced the need for large dose increases in patients already using insulin,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The patients in the empagliflozin (Jardiance) arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME had a 9% rate of initiating insulin treatment after 4 years in the study, compared with a 20% rate among patients who received placebo, a statistically significant 60% relative risk reduction. All patients in the trial continued on their background oral glucose-lowering medications.

Among the 48% of study patients who entered the study already using insulin as part of their usual regimen, 18% of those receiving empagliflozin required a significant increase in their insulin dosage (an increase of at least 20% from baseline) after 4 years. But among the control patients, 35% needed this level of insulin-dosage intensification, again a statistically significant difference that computed to a 58% relative reduction in the need for boosting the insulin dosage.

For both of these endpoints, the divergence between the empagliflozin and control arms became apparent within the first 6 months on treatment, and the between-group differences steadily increased during further follow-up. The analyses pooled the patients who received empagliflozin in the trial, which studied two different dosages of the drug.

Results add to the ‘risk and benefit conversation’

“This is one of the first studies to look at this question in a more granular fashion” in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving a drug from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, said Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. It provides “compelling” information to include when discussing oral diabetes-drug options with patients, he said in an interview.

Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes “often think about insulin” and their potential need to eventually start taking it, with the requirements it brings for training, monitoring, and drug delivery, along with the costs for insulin and glucose monitoring. “Patients are very attuned to potentially needing insulin and often ask about it. A reduced need for insulin will be an important part of the risk and benefit conversation” with patients about potential use of an SGLT2 inhibitor, he said.

Dr. Vaduganathan hypothesized that three factors could contribute to the impact of empagliflozin on insulin initiation and dosage level: a direct glycemic-control effect of the drug, the drug’s positive impact on overall well-being and function that could enhance patient movement, and the documented ability of treatment with empagliflozin and other drugs in its class to cut the rate of heart failure hospitalizations. This last feature is potentially relevant because insulin treatment often starts in patients with type 2 diabetes during a hospitalization, he noted.
 

Handelsman: Analysis shows no ‘spectacular effect’

The association of empagliflozin treatment with a reduced need for insulin seen in these data is consistent with expectations for patients with type 2 diabetes who receive an additional oral drug, commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of American in Tarzana, Calif. “In large part it has to do with patients on placebo having to get more insulin” because their additional oral-drug options were limited. Dr. Handelsman pointed out that during the period when the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial ran, from 2010-2015, fewer oral drugs were available than today, and clinicians in the study were encouraged to treat patients to their goal glycemia level according to local guidelines. In addition to a modest but useful glycemic control effect from SGLT2 inhibitors that, on average, cut hemoglobin A_1c levels by about 0.5%, they may also give a small boost to insulin sensitivity that can also defer the need to add or increase insulin. The level of insulin-treatment deference reported in the new analysis was “not a spectacular effect” he said in an interview.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study followed 7,020 patients at 590 sites in 42 countries for a median of 3.1 years. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke, and the results showed a statistically significant 14% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin treatment (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ). The results also showed that 12 weeks into the study, before patients could receive any additional drugs, HbA_1c levels averaged 0.54%-0.6% lower among the empagliflozin-treated patients than those in the placebo arm, with smaller between-group differences maintained through the balance of the study. At entry, more than half the enrolled patients were routinely treated with metformin, and close to half were receiving a sulfonyurea agent.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME results were also notable as showing for the first time that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor drug produced a substantial decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, incident heart failure, and progression of renal dysfunction, effects subsequently confirmed and also found for other agents in this drug class.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME was funded in part by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim and to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 30-OR.

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available 670G hybrid closed-loop, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest.

Automated insulin delivery systems are comprised of an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an automated insulin dosing algorithm.

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented June 12 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. The AHCL is the algorithm used in Medtronic’s new MiniMed 780G system, which received a CE Mark on June 11 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in people aged 7 to 80 years.

One trial, presented by Bruce W. Bode, MD, of Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Georgia, was the US pivotal safety study that will be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of the Medtronic 780G.

Another trial, presented by Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a separate comparison of the AHCL with the 670G. (The AHCL-based system used in the three trials was identical to the 780G except it didn’t include Bluetooth, which will be a feature of the final product.)

A third trial, presented by Martin de Bock, PhD, of the University of Otago, New Zealand, included the CE Mark dataset for the 780G.

In contrast to the 670G, the 780G adds automated correction boluses for high blood glucose levels (rather than simply adjusting the basal infusion) and allows for adjustment of target glucose levels down to 100 mg/dL rather than a minimum of 120 mg/dL.

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction. And specifically compared to the 670G, the AHCL-based system reverts to open-loop far less often because it only exits closed-loop mode when the sensor stops working or during sensor changes, but not during hyperglycemia even above 300 mg/dL.

Asked to comment, session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, president and CEO of the AMCR Institute, Escondido, California, told Medscape Medical News: “Automated insulin delivery systems are getting better and better.”

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They all take people from where they are now to better time-in-range, less time with hypoglycemia, and most important, they might make the quality of their lives better. That’s really underappreciated.”

One factor that has allowed for the improvements, Bailey said, is the recognition by regulatory bodies that the hybrid closed-loop devices are generally safer than current open-loop type 1 diabetes management so that fewer “safety” device features that interfere with tight glycemic control are necessary.

With first-generation closed-loop systems, “If a wide variety of conditions occur, users get kicked off [hybrid closed-loop mode]. Originally it was perceived by the regulatory agencies as a safety feature because they perceived the standard of care as safe. The new system was allowed to have fewer rules.”
 

Pivotal trial: Time-in-range improved, 96% say system easy to use

The goal of the AHCL system is to maximize the time-in-range of blood glucose between 70-180 mg/dL. Automated basal delivery of insulin is programmed to a set-point of 100 or 120 mg/dL, with dosing every 5 minutes.

The US pivotal trial was a single-arm, 16-center, in-home trial of 157 people with type 1 diabetes, including 39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged 22-75 years. All had type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years, A_1c levels below 10%, and had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months, with or without CGMs.

After a 14-day run-in, they wore the systems with a 100 or 120 mg/dL set-point for 45 days, then switched to the other setpoint for another 45 days. Average A1c dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%, with the proportions having an A1c ≤ 7.0% increasing from 34% to 61%.

Overall time-in-range was 75% compared to 69% at baseline, with time below range (< 70 mg/dL) of 1.8%. Overnight time-in-range was 82%, with 1.5% below range. Time-in-range increased from 62% to 73% in the adolescents and from 71% to 75% in the adults.

There were no incidences of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis, and no device-related serious adverse events.

Participants reported being in hybrid closed-loop, or auto-mode, 95% of the time, compared with 33% for those who had been previously using the 670G.

The number of AHCL exits was 1.3 per week, significantly less than with the 670G. Of those, 29% were user-initiated while the rest were implemented by the device, most often when the sensor wasn’t working.

In a study questionnaire, 96% reported that the system was easy to use.
 

AHCL vs 670G: Major improvements seen

Bergenstal presented data from the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, comparing Medtronic’s AHCL-based system with the currently marketed 670G hybrid closed-loop, in 113 individuals with type 1 diabetes aged 14-29 years.

“This age group has traditionally been the most difficult group in which to optimize glucose management,” Bergenstal said.

FLAIR is believed to be the first-ever study comparing an investigational automated insulin delivery system with a commercially approved system, he noted. All participants used each automated insulin delivery system for 3 months in the randomized crossover trial.

The primary outcome, time spent above 180 mg/dL during the day combined with time below 54 mg/dL over 24 hours at baseline with the 670G and AHCL went from 42% to 37% to 34%, respectively, for the former and from 0.46% to 0.50% to 0.45%, respectively, for the latter.

The percentage time-in-range over 24 hours went from 57% at baseline to 67% with the AHCL versus 63% with the 670G. A1c levels dropped from 7.9% at baseline to 7.6% with the 670G and 7.4% with AHCL.

“Remember, these are the adolescents who are the toughest of the tough, yet there was a 10% increase in time-in-range ... this is very clinically significant,” Bergenstal said.

Even among 14 patients who had been using multiple daily injections without CGM prior to the study, a group often excluded from closed-loop studies, time-in-range improved from 45% at baseline to 63% with the 670G to 65% with AHCL.

“I’m making a plea not to exclude people just because they haven’t previously used technology,” Bergenstal said.

One patient who had dosed with extra insulin manually had a severe hypoglycemia event with AHCL. No patient had diabetic ketoacidosis.

The proportion of insulin given as auto-correction boluses was 36%, which is important as it means that the system was compensating for missed meal doses, a common phenomenon among teenagers, Bergenstal noted.

“There is still room for further improvement in glycemic control in this population of patients with type 1 diabetes, but AHCL represents a significant step forward,” he concluded.
 

New Zealand study: More data in youth show AHCL benefits

Unlike the US study populations of just teens aged 14 and older, and adults, the study data used for approval in the EU — from New Zealand — included a total of 60 patients with 20 children aged 7-15 years. It, too, was a 10-week randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the AHCL to a sensor-augmented pump system with an algorithm only for predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) and no adjustments for high blood glucose.

Time-in-range was 59% at baseline and 58% with PLGM, compared to 70.4% with AHCL, and most of the time-in-range improvement occurred at night. Time below 70 mg/dL dropped from 3.1% to 2.5% to 2.1%, respectively.

Similar to the US studies, participants spent 96% of the time in closed-loop mode with only 1.2 exits per week. On a questionnaire, 95% of patients agreed that the system was easy to use and 85% that the system improved their quality of life.

De Bock showed a slide with some quotes, including one from a parent saying, “We didn’t have to be fearful at night or have that thought when we opened her bedroom door in the morning that she might not be conscious,” and from a patient, “I forgot I had diabetes today.”

Bailey commented: “Of course these devices are not free. So, the challenge is how do we make them available, less expensive, and easy to use? We have our work cut out for us, but this is heartening data. Everything has gotten better but we’re not out of a job yet.”

Bailey has reported receiving research support from Abbott, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Lexicon, Medtronic, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Senseonics, ViaCyte, vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma, and consulting or speaking honoraria from Abbott, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Medtronic. Bode has reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from Medtronic. Bergenstal has reported participating in clinical research, being an advisory board member, and/or serving as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, CeQure, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Senseonics, and United Healthcare. De Bock has reported receiving honoraria or expenses from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Lilly, and research funds from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic.



This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available 670G hybrid closed-loop, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest.

Automated insulin delivery systems are comprised of an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an automated insulin dosing algorithm.

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented June 12 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. The AHCL is the algorithm used in Medtronic’s new MiniMed 780G system, which received a CE Mark on June 11 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in people aged 7 to 80 years.

One trial, presented by Bruce W. Bode, MD, of Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Georgia, was the US pivotal safety study that will be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of the Medtronic 780G.

Another trial, presented by Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a separate comparison of the AHCL with the 670G. (The AHCL-based system used in the three trials was identical to the 780G except it didn’t include Bluetooth, which will be a feature of the final product.)

A third trial, presented by Martin de Bock, PhD, of the University of Otago, New Zealand, included the CE Mark dataset for the 780G.

In contrast to the 670G, the 780G adds automated correction boluses for high blood glucose levels (rather than simply adjusting the basal infusion) and allows for adjustment of target glucose levels down to 100 mg/dL rather than a minimum of 120 mg/dL.

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction. And specifically compared to the 670G, the AHCL-based system reverts to open-loop far less often because it only exits closed-loop mode when the sensor stops working or during sensor changes, but not during hyperglycemia even above 300 mg/dL.

Asked to comment, session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, president and CEO of the AMCR Institute, Escondido, California, told Medscape Medical News: “Automated insulin delivery systems are getting better and better.”

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They all take people from where they are now to better time-in-range, less time with hypoglycemia, and most important, they might make the quality of their lives better. That’s really underappreciated.”

One factor that has allowed for the improvements, Bailey said, is the recognition by regulatory bodies that the hybrid closed-loop devices are generally safer than current open-loop type 1 diabetes management so that fewer “safety” device features that interfere with tight glycemic control are necessary.

With first-generation closed-loop systems, “If a wide variety of conditions occur, users get kicked off [hybrid closed-loop mode]. Originally it was perceived by the regulatory agencies as a safety feature because they perceived the standard of care as safe. The new system was allowed to have fewer rules.”
 

Pivotal trial: Time-in-range improved, 96% say system easy to use

The goal of the AHCL system is to maximize the time-in-range of blood glucose between 70-180 mg/dL. Automated basal delivery of insulin is programmed to a set-point of 100 or 120 mg/dL, with dosing every 5 minutes.

The US pivotal trial was a single-arm, 16-center, in-home trial of 157 people with type 1 diabetes, including 39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged 22-75 years. All had type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years, A_1c levels below 10%, and had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months, with or without CGMs.

After a 14-day run-in, they wore the systems with a 100 or 120 mg/dL set-point for 45 days, then switched to the other setpoint for another 45 days. Average A1c dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%, with the proportions having an A1c ≤ 7.0% increasing from 34% to 61%.

Overall time-in-range was 75% compared to 69% at baseline, with time below range (< 70 mg/dL) of 1.8%. Overnight time-in-range was 82%, with 1.5% below range. Time-in-range increased from 62% to 73% in the adolescents and from 71% to 75% in the adults.

There were no incidences of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis, and no device-related serious adverse events.

Participants reported being in hybrid closed-loop, or auto-mode, 95% of the time, compared with 33% for those who had been previously using the 670G.

The number of AHCL exits was 1.3 per week, significantly less than with the 670G. Of those, 29% were user-initiated while the rest were implemented by the device, most often when the sensor wasn’t working.

In a study questionnaire, 96% reported that the system was easy to use.
 

AHCL vs 670G: Major improvements seen

Bergenstal presented data from the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, comparing Medtronic’s AHCL-based system with the currently marketed 670G hybrid closed-loop, in 113 individuals with type 1 diabetes aged 14-29 years.

“This age group has traditionally been the most difficult group in which to optimize glucose management,” Bergenstal said.

FLAIR is believed to be the first-ever study comparing an investigational automated insulin delivery system with a commercially approved system, he noted. All participants used each automated insulin delivery system for 3 months in the randomized crossover trial.

The primary outcome, time spent above 180 mg/dL during the day combined with time below 54 mg/dL over 24 hours at baseline with the 670G and AHCL went from 42% to 37% to 34%, respectively, for the former and from 0.46% to 0.50% to 0.45%, respectively, for the latter.

The percentage time-in-range over 24 hours went from 57% at baseline to 67% with the AHCL versus 63% with the 670G. A1c levels dropped from 7.9% at baseline to 7.6% with the 670G and 7.4% with AHCL.

“Remember, these are the adolescents who are the toughest of the tough, yet there was a 10% increase in time-in-range ... this is very clinically significant,” Bergenstal said.

Even among 14 patients who had been using multiple daily injections without CGM prior to the study, a group often excluded from closed-loop studies, time-in-range improved from 45% at baseline to 63% with the 670G to 65% with AHCL.

“I’m making a plea not to exclude people just because they haven’t previously used technology,” Bergenstal said.

One patient who had dosed with extra insulin manually had a severe hypoglycemia event with AHCL. No patient had diabetic ketoacidosis.

The proportion of insulin given as auto-correction boluses was 36%, which is important as it means that the system was compensating for missed meal doses, a common phenomenon among teenagers, Bergenstal noted.

“There is still room for further improvement in glycemic control in this population of patients with type 1 diabetes, but AHCL represents a significant step forward,” he concluded.
 

New Zealand study: More data in youth show AHCL benefits

Unlike the US study populations of just teens aged 14 and older, and adults, the study data used for approval in the EU — from New Zealand — included a total of 60 patients with 20 children aged 7-15 years. It, too, was a 10-week randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the AHCL to a sensor-augmented pump system with an algorithm only for predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) and no adjustments for high blood glucose.

Time-in-range was 59% at baseline and 58% with PLGM, compared to 70.4% with AHCL, and most of the time-in-range improvement occurred at night. Time below 70 mg/dL dropped from 3.1% to 2.5% to 2.1%, respectively.

Similar to the US studies, participants spent 96% of the time in closed-loop mode with only 1.2 exits per week. On a questionnaire, 95% of patients agreed that the system was easy to use and 85% that the system improved their quality of life.

De Bock showed a slide with some quotes, including one from a parent saying, “We didn’t have to be fearful at night or have that thought when we opened her bedroom door in the morning that she might not be conscious,” and from a patient, “I forgot I had diabetes today.”

Bailey commented: “Of course these devices are not free. So, the challenge is how do we make them available, less expensive, and easy to use? We have our work cut out for us, but this is heartening data. Everything has gotten better but we’re not out of a job yet.”

Bailey has reported receiving research support from Abbott, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Lexicon, Medtronic, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Senseonics, ViaCyte, vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma, and consulting or speaking honoraria from Abbott, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Medtronic. Bode has reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from Medtronic. Bergenstal has reported participating in clinical research, being an advisory board member, and/or serving as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, CeQure, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Senseonics, and United Healthcare. De Bock has reported receiving honoraria or expenses from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Lilly, and research funds from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic.



This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available 670G hybrid closed-loop, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest.

Automated insulin delivery systems are comprised of an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an automated insulin dosing algorithm.

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented June 12 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. The AHCL is the algorithm used in Medtronic’s new MiniMed 780G system, which received a CE Mark on June 11 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in people aged 7 to 80 years.

One trial, presented by Bruce W. Bode, MD, of Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Georgia, was the US pivotal safety study that will be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of the Medtronic 780G.

Another trial, presented by Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a separate comparison of the AHCL with the 670G. (The AHCL-based system used in the three trials was identical to the 780G except it didn’t include Bluetooth, which will be a feature of the final product.)

A third trial, presented by Martin de Bock, PhD, of the University of Otago, New Zealand, included the CE Mark dataset for the 780G.

In contrast to the 670G, the 780G adds automated correction boluses for high blood glucose levels (rather than simply adjusting the basal infusion) and allows for adjustment of target glucose levels down to 100 mg/dL rather than a minimum of 120 mg/dL.

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction. And specifically compared to the 670G, the AHCL-based system reverts to open-loop far less often because it only exits closed-loop mode when the sensor stops working or during sensor changes, but not during hyperglycemia even above 300 mg/dL.

Asked to comment, session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, president and CEO of the AMCR Institute, Escondido, California, told Medscape Medical News: “Automated insulin delivery systems are getting better and better.”

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They all take people from where they are now to better time-in-range, less time with hypoglycemia, and most important, they might make the quality of their lives better. That’s really underappreciated.”

One factor that has allowed for the improvements, Bailey said, is the recognition by regulatory bodies that the hybrid closed-loop devices are generally safer than current open-loop type 1 diabetes management so that fewer “safety” device features that interfere with tight glycemic control are necessary.

With first-generation closed-loop systems, “If a wide variety of conditions occur, users get kicked off [hybrid closed-loop mode]. Originally it was perceived by the regulatory agencies as a safety feature because they perceived the standard of care as safe. The new system was allowed to have fewer rules.”
 

Pivotal trial: Time-in-range improved, 96% say system easy to use

The goal of the AHCL system is to maximize the time-in-range of blood glucose between 70-180 mg/dL. Automated basal delivery of insulin is programmed to a set-point of 100 or 120 mg/dL, with dosing every 5 minutes.

The US pivotal trial was a single-arm, 16-center, in-home trial of 157 people with type 1 diabetes, including 39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged 22-75 years. All had type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years, A_1c levels below 10%, and had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months, with or without CGMs.

After a 14-day run-in, they wore the systems with a 100 or 120 mg/dL set-point for 45 days, then switched to the other setpoint for another 45 days. Average A1c dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%, with the proportions having an A1c ≤ 7.0% increasing from 34% to 61%.

Overall time-in-range was 75% compared to 69% at baseline, with time below range (< 70 mg/dL) of 1.8%. Overnight time-in-range was 82%, with 1.5% below range. Time-in-range increased from 62% to 73% in the adolescents and from 71% to 75% in the adults.

There were no incidences of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis, and no device-related serious adverse events.

Participants reported being in hybrid closed-loop, or auto-mode, 95% of the time, compared with 33% for those who had been previously using the 670G.

The number of AHCL exits was 1.3 per week, significantly less than with the 670G. Of those, 29% were user-initiated while the rest were implemented by the device, most often when the sensor wasn’t working.

In a study questionnaire, 96% reported that the system was easy to use.
 

AHCL vs 670G: Major improvements seen

Bergenstal presented data from the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, comparing Medtronic’s AHCL-based system with the currently marketed 670G hybrid closed-loop, in 113 individuals with type 1 diabetes aged 14-29 years.

“This age group has traditionally been the most difficult group in which to optimize glucose management,” Bergenstal said.

FLAIR is believed to be the first-ever study comparing an investigational automated insulin delivery system with a commercially approved system, he noted. All participants used each automated insulin delivery system for 3 months in the randomized crossover trial.

The primary outcome, time spent above 180 mg/dL during the day combined with time below 54 mg/dL over 24 hours at baseline with the 670G and AHCL went from 42% to 37% to 34%, respectively, for the former and from 0.46% to 0.50% to 0.45%, respectively, for the latter.

The percentage time-in-range over 24 hours went from 57% at baseline to 67% with the AHCL versus 63% with the 670G. A1c levels dropped from 7.9% at baseline to 7.6% with the 670G and 7.4% with AHCL.

“Remember, these are the adolescents who are the toughest of the tough, yet there was a 10% increase in time-in-range ... this is very clinically significant,” Bergenstal said.

Even among 14 patients who had been using multiple daily injections without CGM prior to the study, a group often excluded from closed-loop studies, time-in-range improved from 45% at baseline to 63% with the 670G to 65% with AHCL.

“I’m making a plea not to exclude people just because they haven’t previously used technology,” Bergenstal said.

One patient who had dosed with extra insulin manually had a severe hypoglycemia event with AHCL. No patient had diabetic ketoacidosis.

The proportion of insulin given as auto-correction boluses was 36%, which is important as it means that the system was compensating for missed meal doses, a common phenomenon among teenagers, Bergenstal noted.

“There is still room for further improvement in glycemic control in this population of patients with type 1 diabetes, but AHCL represents a significant step forward,” he concluded.
 

New Zealand study: More data in youth show AHCL benefits

Unlike the US study populations of just teens aged 14 and older, and adults, the study data used for approval in the EU — from New Zealand — included a total of 60 patients with 20 children aged 7-15 years. It, too, was a 10-week randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the AHCL to a sensor-augmented pump system with an algorithm only for predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) and no adjustments for high blood glucose.

Time-in-range was 59% at baseline and 58% with PLGM, compared to 70.4% with AHCL, and most of the time-in-range improvement occurred at night. Time below 70 mg/dL dropped from 3.1% to 2.5% to 2.1%, respectively.

Similar to the US studies, participants spent 96% of the time in closed-loop mode with only 1.2 exits per week. On a questionnaire, 95% of patients agreed that the system was easy to use and 85% that the system improved their quality of life.

De Bock showed a slide with some quotes, including one from a parent saying, “We didn’t have to be fearful at night or have that thought when we opened her bedroom door in the morning that she might not be conscious,” and from a patient, “I forgot I had diabetes today.”

Bailey commented: “Of course these devices are not free. So, the challenge is how do we make them available, less expensive, and easy to use? We have our work cut out for us, but this is heartening data. Everything has gotten better but we’re not out of a job yet.”

Bailey has reported receiving research support from Abbott, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Lexicon, Medtronic, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Senseonics, ViaCyte, vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma, and consulting or speaking honoraria from Abbott, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Medtronic. Bode has reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from Medtronic. Bergenstal has reported participating in clinical research, being an advisory board member, and/or serving as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, CeQure, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Senseonics, and United Healthcare. De Bock has reported receiving honoraria or expenses from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Lilly, and research funds from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic.



This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Low-dose ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase 2 study, according to an investigator.

The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.

“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
 

Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity

“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.

Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.

The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.

“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”

“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”

However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

Patients and treatment

The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.

Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.

The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.

Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.

The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
 

Response details

There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.

“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”

“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”

“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
 

Survival and safety

The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.

“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.

Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.

The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.

Low-dose ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase 2 study, according to an investigator.

The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.

“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
 

Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity

“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.

Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.

The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.

“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”

“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”

However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

Patients and treatment

The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.

Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.

The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.

Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.

The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
 

Response details

There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.

“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”

“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”

“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
 

Survival and safety

The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.

“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.

Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.

The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.

Low-dose ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase 2 study, according to an investigator.

The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.

“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
 

Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity

“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.

Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.

The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.

“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”

“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”

However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

Patients and treatment

The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.

Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.

The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.

Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.

The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
 

Response details

There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.

“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”

“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”

“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
 

Survival and safety

The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.

“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.

Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.

The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.

The antipsychotic lurasidone (Latuda, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) has long-term efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression (BD) in children and adolescents, new research suggests.

In an open-label extension study involving patients aged 10-17 years, up to 2 years of treatment with lurasidone was associated with continued improvement in depressive symptoms. There were progressively higher rates of remission, recovery, and sustained remission.

Coinvestigator Manpreet K. Singh, MD, director of the Stanford Pediatric Mood Disorders Program, Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that early onset of BD is common. Although in pediatric populations, prevalence has been fairly stable at around 1.8%, these patients have “a very limited number of treatment options available for the depressed phases of BD,” which is often predominant and can be difficult to identify.

“A lot of youths who are experiencing depressive symptoms in the context of having had a manic episode will often have a relapsing and remitting course, even after the acute phase of treatment, so because kids can be on medications for long periods of time, a better understanding of what works ... is very important,” Dr. Singh said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) 2020 annual meeting.
 

Long-term Efficacy

The Food and Drug Administration approved lurasidone as monotherapy for BD in children and adolescents in 2018. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the drug’s long-term efficacy in achieving response or remission in this population.

A total of 305 children who completed an initial 6-week double-blind study of lurasidone versus placebo entered the 2-year, open-label extension study. In the extension, they either continued taking lurasidone or were switched from placebo to lurasidone 20-80 mg/day. Of this group, 195 children completed 52 weeks of treatment, and 93 completed 104 weeks of treatment.

Medscape.com

Efficacy was measured with the Children’s Depression Rating Scale, Revised (CDRS-R) and the Clinical Global Impression, Bipolar Depression Severity scale (CGI-BP-S). Functioning was evaluated with the clinician-rated Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS); on that scale, a score of 70 or higher indicates no clinically meaningful functional impairment.

Responder criteria were met if a patient achieved at least a 50% reduction in the CDRS-R total score. Remission criteria were met if a patient achieved a CDRS-R total score of 28 or less, a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score of 8 or less, and a CGI-BP-S depression score of 3 or less.

Recovery criteria were met if a patient achieved remission and had a CGAS score of at least 70.

Sustained remission, a more stringent outcome, required that the patient meet remission criteria for at least 24 consecutive weeks.

In addition, there was a strong inverse correlation (r = –0.71) between depression severity, as measured by CDRS-R total score, and functioning, as measured by the CGAS.

“That’s the cool thing: As the depression symptoms and severity came down, the overall functioning in these kids improved,” Dr. Singh noted.

“This improvement in functioning ends up being much more clinically relevant and useful to clinicians than just showing an improvement in a set of symptoms because what brings a kid – or even an adult, for that matter – to see a clinician to get treatment is because something about their symptoms is causing significant functional impairment,” she said.

“So this is the take-home message: You can see that lurasidone ... demonstrates not just recovery from depressive symptoms but that this reduction in depressive symptoms corresponds to an improvement in functioning for these youths,” she added.


 

Potential Limitations

Commenting on the study, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charite Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, Germany, noted that BD is difficult to treat, especially for patients who are going through “a developmentally vulnerable phase of their lives.”

“Lurasidone is the only monotherapy approved for bipolar depression in youth and is fairly well tolerated,” said Dr. Correll, who was not part of the research. He added that the long-term effectiveness data on response and remission “add relevant information” to the field.

However, he noted that it is not clear whether the high and increasing rates of response and remission were based on the reporting of observed cases or on last-observation-carried-forward analyses. “Given the naturally high dropout rate in such a long-term study and the potential for a survival bias, this is a relevant methodological question that affects the interpretation of the data,” he said.

“Nevertheless, the very favorable results for cumulative response, remission, and sustained remission add to the evidence that lurasidone is an effective treatment for youth with bipolar depression. Since efficacy cannot be interpreted in isolation, data describing the tolerability, including long-term cardiometabolic effects, will be important complementary data to consider,” Dr. Correll said.

The study was funded by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Singh is on the advisory board for Sunovion, is a consultant for Google X and Limbix, and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing. She has also received research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Department of Psychiatry, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, Johnson and Johnson, Allergan, PCORI, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or adviser to and has received honoraria from Sunovion, as well as Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

The antipsychotic lurasidone (Latuda, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) has long-term efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression (BD) in children and adolescents, new research suggests.

In an open-label extension study involving patients aged 10-17 years, up to 2 years of treatment with lurasidone was associated with continued improvement in depressive symptoms. There were progressively higher rates of remission, recovery, and sustained remission.

Coinvestigator Manpreet K. Singh, MD, director of the Stanford Pediatric Mood Disorders Program, Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that early onset of BD is common. Although in pediatric populations, prevalence has been fairly stable at around 1.8%, these patients have “a very limited number of treatment options available for the depressed phases of BD,” which is often predominant and can be difficult to identify.

“A lot of youths who are experiencing depressive symptoms in the context of having had a manic episode will often have a relapsing and remitting course, even after the acute phase of treatment, so because kids can be on medications for long periods of time, a better understanding of what works ... is very important,” Dr. Singh said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) 2020 annual meeting.
 

Long-term Efficacy

The Food and Drug Administration approved lurasidone as monotherapy for BD in children and adolescents in 2018. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the drug’s long-term efficacy in achieving response or remission in this population.

A total of 305 children who completed an initial 6-week double-blind study of lurasidone versus placebo entered the 2-year, open-label extension study. In the extension, they either continued taking lurasidone or were switched from placebo to lurasidone 20-80 mg/day. Of this group, 195 children completed 52 weeks of treatment, and 93 completed 104 weeks of treatment.

Medscape.com

Efficacy was measured with the Children’s Depression Rating Scale, Revised (CDRS-R) and the Clinical Global Impression, Bipolar Depression Severity scale (CGI-BP-S). Functioning was evaluated with the clinician-rated Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS); on that scale, a score of 70 or higher indicates no clinically meaningful functional impairment.

Responder criteria were met if a patient achieved at least a 50% reduction in the CDRS-R total score. Remission criteria were met if a patient achieved a CDRS-R total score of 28 or less, a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score of 8 or less, and a CGI-BP-S depression score of 3 or less.

Recovery criteria were met if a patient achieved remission and had a CGAS score of at least 70.

Sustained remission, a more stringent outcome, required that the patient meet remission criteria for at least 24 consecutive weeks.

In addition, there was a strong inverse correlation (r = –0.71) between depression severity, as measured by CDRS-R total score, and functioning, as measured by the CGAS.

“That’s the cool thing: As the depression symptoms and severity came down, the overall functioning in these kids improved,” Dr. Singh noted.

“This improvement in functioning ends up being much more clinically relevant and useful to clinicians than just showing an improvement in a set of symptoms because what brings a kid – or even an adult, for that matter – to see a clinician to get treatment is because something about their symptoms is causing significant functional impairment,” she said.

“So this is the take-home message: You can see that lurasidone ... demonstrates not just recovery from depressive symptoms but that this reduction in depressive symptoms corresponds to an improvement in functioning for these youths,” she added.


 

Potential Limitations

Commenting on the study, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charite Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, Germany, noted that BD is difficult to treat, especially for patients who are going through “a developmentally vulnerable phase of their lives.”

“Lurasidone is the only monotherapy approved for bipolar depression in youth and is fairly well tolerated,” said Dr. Correll, who was not part of the research. He added that the long-term effectiveness data on response and remission “add relevant information” to the field.

However, he noted that it is not clear whether the high and increasing rates of response and remission were based on the reporting of observed cases or on last-observation-carried-forward analyses. “Given the naturally high dropout rate in such a long-term study and the potential for a survival bias, this is a relevant methodological question that affects the interpretation of the data,” he said.

“Nevertheless, the very favorable results for cumulative response, remission, and sustained remission add to the evidence that lurasidone is an effective treatment for youth with bipolar depression. Since efficacy cannot be interpreted in isolation, data describing the tolerability, including long-term cardiometabolic effects, will be important complementary data to consider,” Dr. Correll said.

The study was funded by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Singh is on the advisory board for Sunovion, is a consultant for Google X and Limbix, and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing. She has also received research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Department of Psychiatry, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, Johnson and Johnson, Allergan, PCORI, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or adviser to and has received honoraria from Sunovion, as well as Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

The antipsychotic lurasidone (Latuda, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) has long-term efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression (BD) in children and adolescents, new research suggests.

In an open-label extension study involving patients aged 10-17 years, up to 2 years of treatment with lurasidone was associated with continued improvement in depressive symptoms. There were progressively higher rates of remission, recovery, and sustained remission.

Coinvestigator Manpreet K. Singh, MD, director of the Stanford Pediatric Mood Disorders Program, Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that early onset of BD is common. Although in pediatric populations, prevalence has been fairly stable at around 1.8%, these patients have “a very limited number of treatment options available for the depressed phases of BD,” which is often predominant and can be difficult to identify.

“A lot of youths who are experiencing depressive symptoms in the context of having had a manic episode will often have a relapsing and remitting course, even after the acute phase of treatment, so because kids can be on medications for long periods of time, a better understanding of what works ... is very important,” Dr. Singh said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) 2020 annual meeting.
 

Long-term Efficacy

The Food and Drug Administration approved lurasidone as monotherapy for BD in children and adolescents in 2018. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the drug’s long-term efficacy in achieving response or remission in this population.

A total of 305 children who completed an initial 6-week double-blind study of lurasidone versus placebo entered the 2-year, open-label extension study. In the extension, they either continued taking lurasidone or were switched from placebo to lurasidone 20-80 mg/day. Of this group, 195 children completed 52 weeks of treatment, and 93 completed 104 weeks of treatment.

Medscape.com

Efficacy was measured with the Children’s Depression Rating Scale, Revised (CDRS-R) and the Clinical Global Impression, Bipolar Depression Severity scale (CGI-BP-S). Functioning was evaluated with the clinician-rated Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS); on that scale, a score of 70 or higher indicates no clinically meaningful functional impairment.

Responder criteria were met if a patient achieved at least a 50% reduction in the CDRS-R total score. Remission criteria were met if a patient achieved a CDRS-R total score of 28 or less, a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score of 8 or less, and a CGI-BP-S depression score of 3 or less.

Recovery criteria were met if a patient achieved remission and had a CGAS score of at least 70.

Sustained remission, a more stringent outcome, required that the patient meet remission criteria for at least 24 consecutive weeks.

In addition, there was a strong inverse correlation (r = –0.71) between depression severity, as measured by CDRS-R total score, and functioning, as measured by the CGAS.

“That’s the cool thing: As the depression symptoms and severity came down, the overall functioning in these kids improved,” Dr. Singh noted.

“This improvement in functioning ends up being much more clinically relevant and useful to clinicians than just showing an improvement in a set of symptoms because what brings a kid – or even an adult, for that matter – to see a clinician to get treatment is because something about their symptoms is causing significant functional impairment,” she said.

“So this is the take-home message: You can see that lurasidone ... demonstrates not just recovery from depressive symptoms but that this reduction in depressive symptoms corresponds to an improvement in functioning for these youths,” she added.


 

Potential Limitations

Commenting on the study, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charite Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, Germany, noted that BD is difficult to treat, especially for patients who are going through “a developmentally vulnerable phase of their lives.”

“Lurasidone is the only monotherapy approved for bipolar depression in youth and is fairly well tolerated,” said Dr. Correll, who was not part of the research. He added that the long-term effectiveness data on response and remission “add relevant information” to the field.

However, he noted that it is not clear whether the high and increasing rates of response and remission were based on the reporting of observed cases or on last-observation-carried-forward analyses. “Given the naturally high dropout rate in such a long-term study and the potential for a survival bias, this is a relevant methodological question that affects the interpretation of the data,” he said.

“Nevertheless, the very favorable results for cumulative response, remission, and sustained remission add to the evidence that lurasidone is an effective treatment for youth with bipolar depression. Since efficacy cannot be interpreted in isolation, data describing the tolerability, including long-term cardiometabolic effects, will be important complementary data to consider,” Dr. Correll said.

The study was funded by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Singh is on the advisory board for Sunovion, is a consultant for Google X and Limbix, and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing. She has also received research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Department of Psychiatry, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, Johnson and Johnson, Allergan, PCORI, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or adviser to and has received honoraria from Sunovion, as well as Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

Clinically significant sex-based differences in left ventricular ejection fraction related to mortality emerged in a real-world, observational, big data study from Australia, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.

This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.

Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.

Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
 

High LVEF, higher mortality in women

Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.

He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).

The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
 

New treatment opportunity for women?

Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).

Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.

Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.

Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.

“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.

Clinically significant sex-based differences in left ventricular ejection fraction related to mortality emerged in a real-world, observational, big data study from Australia, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.

This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.

Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.

Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
 

High LVEF, higher mortality in women

Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.

He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).

The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
 

New treatment opportunity for women?

Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).

Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.

Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.

Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.

“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.

Clinically significant sex-based differences in left ventricular ejection fraction related to mortality emerged in a real-world, observational, big data study from Australia, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.

This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.

Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.

Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
 

High LVEF, higher mortality in women

Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.

He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).

The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
 

New treatment opportunity for women?

Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).

Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.

Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.

Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.

“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.