Conference Coverage

Intravenous (IV) esketamine is as safe and effective as IV ketamine for patients with treatment-resistant depression, new research suggests.

“Our study was the first randomized clinical trial directly comparing ketamine and esketamine in treatment-resistant depression,” senior investigator Lucas C. Quarantini, MD, PhD, division of psychiatry, Professor Edgard Santos University Hospital, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil, said in an interview.

The findings showed that esketamine was not inferior to ketamine in remission of depressive symptoms 24 hours after a single IV dose, and the two treatments had similar side effect profiles, Dr. Quarantini said.

Furthermore, “our results showed that only the number of treatment failures was an important factor for the remission of symptoms,” he added.

The findings were scheduled to be presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Conference 2020, along with publication in the Journal of Affective Disorders (2020 Mar 1;264:527-34). However, the ADAA conference was canceled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

More treatment options

The randomized, double-blind noninferiority trial compared IV racemic ketamine and esketamine, two formulations of the glutamate NMDA receptor modulator drug. It included 63 participants (61.9% women; mean age, 47 years) with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, as determined by DSM-5 criteria.

Participants were enrolled between March 2017 and June 2018 and randomized to receive a single subanesthetic dose of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg; n = 29) or esketamine (0.25 mg/kg; n = 34) for 40 minutes.

Results showed esketamine to be noninferior to ketamine as determined by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

At 24 hours following infusion, 24.1% of the ketamine group versus 29.4% of the esketamine group showed remission of depression. The difference of just 5.3% confirmed noninferiority.

Although ketamine showed a tendency to have a longer-lasting antidepressant effect compared with esketamine, the difference did not reach statistical significance and should be evaluated in future studies, the investigators noted.

Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Consistent with previous studies, the most frequent side effects were dissociative symptoms, including derealization, depersonalization, and cardiovascular changes, and increased blood pressure and heart rate, which occurred equally in both groups. There were no serious adverse events in either study group.

The investigators noted that most of the previous research examining antidepressant effects of ketamine has used the IV racemic type. The current findings are particularly important for situations in which ketamine or intranasal esketamine, which was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, are unavailable, Dr. Quarantini said.

“What our study adds to what has been previously published is that the only way to really analyze if two drugs are equivalent is to compare them in a head-to-head trial; and that was what we did,” he said.

“Our findings bring a greater basis for practitioners from locations where intravenous esketamine is more easily obtainable than ketamine to use it as an affordable option for treating depressive patients,” Dr. Quarantini added.

“Since this [lack of availability] is the scenario here in Brazil, and probably in many other countries, all patients from these locations will benefit from this finding,” he said. 

While further evaluating the study results to determine which clinical characteristics were predictive of remission of depressive symptoms, the researchers assessed several key factors. The median duration of disease progression was 12 months, median number of depressive episodes was five, and median number of therapeutic treatment failures was three.

The investigators also looked at the number of suicide attempts and degree of dissociative behavior.

Of these factors, the number of therapeutic failures was the only significant predictor of symptom remission, with an odds ratio of 1.46 for each prior therapeutic failure (95% CI, 1.08-1.99).

“To date, we have not found [other] studies with similar data,” Dr. Quarantini noted.

“Identifying remission predictors may contribute to selecting more suitable candidates for the intervention and result in more individualized and effective patient management,” the investigators wrote.

Consistent findings

Commenting on the findings, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that key study limitations include the small sample size and lack of a placebo group.

Nevertheless, “I think it is fair to say that it is unlikely that the treatments are markedly different in their effects on depression over 24 hours,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Sanacora, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, was not involved with the current research.

The findings are “consistent with what we can extrapolate from other clinical trials examining racemic ketamine and esketamine separately,” he said.

Dr. Sanacora noted that because esketamine has been previously shown to be a more potent anesthetic than arketamine, the other component of racemic ketamine, it is “the primary form of ketamine used as an anesthetic agent in several regions of the world with the idea that it may be more selective for the desired anesthetic effect.”

Even with its limitations, the study does offer some notable yet preliminary insights, he added.

“It is interesting to see varying degrees of numerical differences between the two treatments at different time points,” Dr. Sanacora said. In addition, “there may be some differing effects between the two treatments over time, but we really do not have enough data to say much of anything [about that] with confidence at this point.”

The study was supported by the Programa de Pesquisa para o SUS through Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia. Dr. Quarantini has reported receiving consulting fees from Allergan, Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Lundbeck, and research fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The other study authors’ disclosures are listed in the published article. Dr. Sanacora has reported consulting and/or conducting research from several pharmaceutical companies. He also holds shares in BioHaven Pharmaceuticals and is coinventor on a patent called “Glutamate Agents in the Treatment of Mental Disorders.”

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

Intravenous (IV) esketamine is as safe and effective as IV ketamine for patients with treatment-resistant depression, new research suggests.

“Our study was the first randomized clinical trial directly comparing ketamine and esketamine in treatment-resistant depression,” senior investigator Lucas C. Quarantini, MD, PhD, division of psychiatry, Professor Edgard Santos University Hospital, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil, said in an interview.

The findings showed that esketamine was not inferior to ketamine in remission of depressive symptoms 24 hours after a single IV dose, and the two treatments had similar side effect profiles, Dr. Quarantini said.

Furthermore, “our results showed that only the number of treatment failures was an important factor for the remission of symptoms,” he added.

The findings were scheduled to be presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Conference 2020, along with publication in the Journal of Affective Disorders (2020 Mar 1;264:527-34). However, the ADAA conference was canceled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

More treatment options

The randomized, double-blind noninferiority trial compared IV racemic ketamine and esketamine, two formulations of the glutamate NMDA receptor modulator drug. It included 63 participants (61.9% women; mean age, 47 years) with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, as determined by DSM-5 criteria.

Participants were enrolled between March 2017 and June 2018 and randomized to receive a single subanesthetic dose of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg; n = 29) or esketamine (0.25 mg/kg; n = 34) for 40 minutes.

Results showed esketamine to be noninferior to ketamine as determined by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

At 24 hours following infusion, 24.1% of the ketamine group versus 29.4% of the esketamine group showed remission of depression. The difference of just 5.3% confirmed noninferiority.

Although ketamine showed a tendency to have a longer-lasting antidepressant effect compared with esketamine, the difference did not reach statistical significance and should be evaluated in future studies, the investigators noted.

Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Consistent with previous studies, the most frequent side effects were dissociative symptoms, including derealization, depersonalization, and cardiovascular changes, and increased blood pressure and heart rate, which occurred equally in both groups. There were no serious adverse events in either study group.

The investigators noted that most of the previous research examining antidepressant effects of ketamine has used the IV racemic type. The current findings are particularly important for situations in which ketamine or intranasal esketamine, which was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, are unavailable, Dr. Quarantini said.

“What our study adds to what has been previously published is that the only way to really analyze if two drugs are equivalent is to compare them in a head-to-head trial; and that was what we did,” he said.

“Our findings bring a greater basis for practitioners from locations where intravenous esketamine is more easily obtainable than ketamine to use it as an affordable option for treating depressive patients,” Dr. Quarantini added.

“Since this [lack of availability] is the scenario here in Brazil, and probably in many other countries, all patients from these locations will benefit from this finding,” he said. 

While further evaluating the study results to determine which clinical characteristics were predictive of remission of depressive symptoms, the researchers assessed several key factors. The median duration of disease progression was 12 months, median number of depressive episodes was five, and median number of therapeutic treatment failures was three.

The investigators also looked at the number of suicide attempts and degree of dissociative behavior.

Of these factors, the number of therapeutic failures was the only significant predictor of symptom remission, with an odds ratio of 1.46 for each prior therapeutic failure (95% CI, 1.08-1.99).

“To date, we have not found [other] studies with similar data,” Dr. Quarantini noted.

“Identifying remission predictors may contribute to selecting more suitable candidates for the intervention and result in more individualized and effective patient management,” the investigators wrote.

Consistent findings

Commenting on the findings, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that key study limitations include the small sample size and lack of a placebo group.

Nevertheless, “I think it is fair to say that it is unlikely that the treatments are markedly different in their effects on depression over 24 hours,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Sanacora, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, was not involved with the current research.

The findings are “consistent with what we can extrapolate from other clinical trials examining racemic ketamine and esketamine separately,” he said.

Dr. Sanacora noted that because esketamine has been previously shown to be a more potent anesthetic than arketamine, the other component of racemic ketamine, it is “the primary form of ketamine used as an anesthetic agent in several regions of the world with the idea that it may be more selective for the desired anesthetic effect.”

Even with its limitations, the study does offer some notable yet preliminary insights, he added.

“It is interesting to see varying degrees of numerical differences between the two treatments at different time points,” Dr. Sanacora said. In addition, “there may be some differing effects between the two treatments over time, but we really do not have enough data to say much of anything [about that] with confidence at this point.”

The study was supported by the Programa de Pesquisa para o SUS through Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia. Dr. Quarantini has reported receiving consulting fees from Allergan, Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Lundbeck, and research fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The other study authors’ disclosures are listed in the published article. Dr. Sanacora has reported consulting and/or conducting research from several pharmaceutical companies. He also holds shares in BioHaven Pharmaceuticals and is coinventor on a patent called “Glutamate Agents in the Treatment of Mental Disorders.”

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

Intravenous (IV) esketamine is as safe and effective as IV ketamine for patients with treatment-resistant depression, new research suggests.

“Our study was the first randomized clinical trial directly comparing ketamine and esketamine in treatment-resistant depression,” senior investigator Lucas C. Quarantini, MD, PhD, division of psychiatry, Professor Edgard Santos University Hospital, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil, said in an interview.

The findings showed that esketamine was not inferior to ketamine in remission of depressive symptoms 24 hours after a single IV dose, and the two treatments had similar side effect profiles, Dr. Quarantini said.

Furthermore, “our results showed that only the number of treatment failures was an important factor for the remission of symptoms,” he added.

The findings were scheduled to be presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Conference 2020, along with publication in the Journal of Affective Disorders (2020 Mar 1;264:527-34). However, the ADAA conference was canceled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

More treatment options

The randomized, double-blind noninferiority trial compared IV racemic ketamine and esketamine, two formulations of the glutamate NMDA receptor modulator drug. It included 63 participants (61.9% women; mean age, 47 years) with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, as determined by DSM-5 criteria.

Participants were enrolled between March 2017 and June 2018 and randomized to receive a single subanesthetic dose of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg; n = 29) or esketamine (0.25 mg/kg; n = 34) for 40 minutes.

Results showed esketamine to be noninferior to ketamine as determined by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

At 24 hours following infusion, 24.1% of the ketamine group versus 29.4% of the esketamine group showed remission of depression. The difference of just 5.3% confirmed noninferiority.

Although ketamine showed a tendency to have a longer-lasting antidepressant effect compared with esketamine, the difference did not reach statistical significance and should be evaluated in future studies, the investigators noted.

Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Consistent with previous studies, the most frequent side effects were dissociative symptoms, including derealization, depersonalization, and cardiovascular changes, and increased blood pressure and heart rate, which occurred equally in both groups. There were no serious adverse events in either study group.

The investigators noted that most of the previous research examining antidepressant effects of ketamine has used the IV racemic type. The current findings are particularly important for situations in which ketamine or intranasal esketamine, which was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, are unavailable, Dr. Quarantini said.

“What our study adds to what has been previously published is that the only way to really analyze if two drugs are equivalent is to compare them in a head-to-head trial; and that was what we did,” he said.

“Our findings bring a greater basis for practitioners from locations where intravenous esketamine is more easily obtainable than ketamine to use it as an affordable option for treating depressive patients,” Dr. Quarantini added.

“Since this [lack of availability] is the scenario here in Brazil, and probably in many other countries, all patients from these locations will benefit from this finding,” he said. 

While further evaluating the study results to determine which clinical characteristics were predictive of remission of depressive symptoms, the researchers assessed several key factors. The median duration of disease progression was 12 months, median number of depressive episodes was five, and median number of therapeutic treatment failures was three.

The investigators also looked at the number of suicide attempts and degree of dissociative behavior.

Of these factors, the number of therapeutic failures was the only significant predictor of symptom remission, with an odds ratio of 1.46 for each prior therapeutic failure (95% CI, 1.08-1.99).

“To date, we have not found [other] studies with similar data,” Dr. Quarantini noted.

“Identifying remission predictors may contribute to selecting more suitable candidates for the intervention and result in more individualized and effective patient management,” the investigators wrote.

Consistent findings

Commenting on the findings, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that key study limitations include the small sample size and lack of a placebo group.

Nevertheless, “I think it is fair to say that it is unlikely that the treatments are markedly different in their effects on depression over 24 hours,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Sanacora, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, was not involved with the current research.

The findings are “consistent with what we can extrapolate from other clinical trials examining racemic ketamine and esketamine separately,” he said.

Dr. Sanacora noted that because esketamine has been previously shown to be a more potent anesthetic than arketamine, the other component of racemic ketamine, it is “the primary form of ketamine used as an anesthetic agent in several regions of the world with the idea that it may be more selective for the desired anesthetic effect.”

Even with its limitations, the study does offer some notable yet preliminary insights, he added.

“It is interesting to see varying degrees of numerical differences between the two treatments at different time points,” Dr. Sanacora said. In addition, “there may be some differing effects between the two treatments over time, but we really do not have enough data to say much of anything [about that] with confidence at this point.”

The study was supported by the Programa de Pesquisa para o SUS through Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia. Dr. Quarantini has reported receiving consulting fees from Allergan, Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Lundbeck, and research fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The other study authors’ disclosures are listed in the published article. Dr. Sanacora has reported consulting and/or conducting research from several pharmaceutical companies. He also holds shares in BioHaven Pharmaceuticals and is coinventor on a patent called “Glutamate Agents in the Treatment of Mental Disorders.”

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

The experimental agent adavosertib showed hints of efficacy against recurrent uterine serous carcinoma in early data from a phase 2 trial.

The overall response rate among 21 patients with advanced uterine serous carcinoma treated with adavosertib monotherapy was 30%, and an additional patient had an unconfirmed response at the time of data cutoff, reported Joyce F. Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues.

“These results were noteworthy for the preliminary response rate of 30% that was observed in the first cohort of patients on this study, especially as, on average, patients on this study had received three prior treatments for their cancer. For us, this was an exciting signal of activity, especially for a targeted therapy used by itself in this type of cancer,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.

Preliminary results of the phase 2 trial were published in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adavosertib is a small molecule that inhibits the Wee1 kinase, a “gatekeeper” of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint that is highly expressed and active in several types of cancer.

“Molecular characterization of these cancers has demonstrated that they have frequent p53 mutations as well as significant alterations in oncogenes,” Dr. Liu said. “These characteristics mean that these are cancers that may both have significant dysregulation of their cell cycle combined with high levels of replication stress. We hypothesized that these cancers could therefore be particularly vulnerable to further dysregulation of the cell cycle, which can be mediated by a drug such as adavosertib, which interrupts regulation of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint by inhibiting the protein Wee1.”
 

Study details

The study enrolled women with recurrent uterine serous carcinoma. Patients were eligible if any disease component was considered to be serous, except for carcinosarcomas. The patients had a minimum of one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (median 3, range 1-7), with no upper limit on prior lines of therapy required for eligibility.

Patients with microsatellite high/deficient mismatch repair disease had to have received prior therapy with programmed death-1/ligand-1 inhibitor, or to have been deemed ineligible for immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor.

The patients received adavosertib at 300 mg daily on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 21-day cycle.

The trial would be considered successful if at least of 4 of 35 patients planned for accrual had a confirmed response or if 8 patients were progression free at 6 months. The coprimary endpoints are overall response rate of 20% or more, or a progression-free survival rate at 6 months of 30% or more.
 

Results and next steps

As of Aug. 20, 2019, the investigators had enrolled 27 patients, of whom 21 were evaluable for response.

The overall response rate was 30%, consisting of six confirmed partial responses. One additional patient had an unconfirmed response. Eleven of the 21 patients had stable disease, and 3 had disease progression.

Eleven patients remained on treatment with adavosertib at the time of data cutoff. Progression-free survival data were not mature.

The most frequent adverse events included anemia and diarrhea in 67% of patients each, nausea in 58%, and fatigue in 50%.

Frequent grade 3 or higher adverse effects included anemia, neutropenia, and syncope, all occurring in 21% of patients.

Dr. Liu said the investigators plan to present updated data from the study at a future meeting.

“We are planning additional cohorts in this study that will allow us to more deeply investigate why certain uterine serous cancer patients had very good responses to adavosertib and to identify potential biomarkers of response,” she said.

“Additionally, we plan to investigate whether adavosertib has similar activity in another type of uterine cancer, uterine carcinosarcoma, that shares many similar molecular characteristics with uterine serous carcinoma, including p53 mutations and oncogenic alterations, that might make it similarly vulnerable to targeting Wee1,” she said.

Dr. Liu disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, which supported the trial, as well as Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Liu JF et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 7.

The experimental agent adavosertib showed hints of efficacy against recurrent uterine serous carcinoma in early data from a phase 2 trial.

The overall response rate among 21 patients with advanced uterine serous carcinoma treated with adavosertib monotherapy was 30%, and an additional patient had an unconfirmed response at the time of data cutoff, reported Joyce F. Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues.

“These results were noteworthy for the preliminary response rate of 30% that was observed in the first cohort of patients on this study, especially as, on average, patients on this study had received three prior treatments for their cancer. For us, this was an exciting signal of activity, especially for a targeted therapy used by itself in this type of cancer,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.

Preliminary results of the phase 2 trial were published in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adavosertib is a small molecule that inhibits the Wee1 kinase, a “gatekeeper” of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint that is highly expressed and active in several types of cancer.

“Molecular characterization of these cancers has demonstrated that they have frequent p53 mutations as well as significant alterations in oncogenes,” Dr. Liu said. “These characteristics mean that these are cancers that may both have significant dysregulation of their cell cycle combined with high levels of replication stress. We hypothesized that these cancers could therefore be particularly vulnerable to further dysregulation of the cell cycle, which can be mediated by a drug such as adavosertib, which interrupts regulation of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint by inhibiting the protein Wee1.”
 

Study details

The study enrolled women with recurrent uterine serous carcinoma. Patients were eligible if any disease component was considered to be serous, except for carcinosarcomas. The patients had a minimum of one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (median 3, range 1-7), with no upper limit on prior lines of therapy required for eligibility.

Patients with microsatellite high/deficient mismatch repair disease had to have received prior therapy with programmed death-1/ligand-1 inhibitor, or to have been deemed ineligible for immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor.

The patients received adavosertib at 300 mg daily on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 21-day cycle.

The trial would be considered successful if at least of 4 of 35 patients planned for accrual had a confirmed response or if 8 patients were progression free at 6 months. The coprimary endpoints are overall response rate of 20% or more, or a progression-free survival rate at 6 months of 30% or more.
 

Results and next steps

As of Aug. 20, 2019, the investigators had enrolled 27 patients, of whom 21 were evaluable for response.

The overall response rate was 30%, consisting of six confirmed partial responses. One additional patient had an unconfirmed response. Eleven of the 21 patients had stable disease, and 3 had disease progression.

Eleven patients remained on treatment with adavosertib at the time of data cutoff. Progression-free survival data were not mature.

The most frequent adverse events included anemia and diarrhea in 67% of patients each, nausea in 58%, and fatigue in 50%.

Frequent grade 3 or higher adverse effects included anemia, neutropenia, and syncope, all occurring in 21% of patients.

Dr. Liu said the investigators plan to present updated data from the study at a future meeting.

“We are planning additional cohorts in this study that will allow us to more deeply investigate why certain uterine serous cancer patients had very good responses to adavosertib and to identify potential biomarkers of response,” she said.

“Additionally, we plan to investigate whether adavosertib has similar activity in another type of uterine cancer, uterine carcinosarcoma, that shares many similar molecular characteristics with uterine serous carcinoma, including p53 mutations and oncogenic alterations, that might make it similarly vulnerable to targeting Wee1,” she said.

Dr. Liu disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, which supported the trial, as well as Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Liu JF et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 7.

The experimental agent adavosertib showed hints of efficacy against recurrent uterine serous carcinoma in early data from a phase 2 trial.

The overall response rate among 21 patients with advanced uterine serous carcinoma treated with adavosertib monotherapy was 30%, and an additional patient had an unconfirmed response at the time of data cutoff, reported Joyce F. Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues.

“These results were noteworthy for the preliminary response rate of 30% that was observed in the first cohort of patients on this study, especially as, on average, patients on this study had received three prior treatments for their cancer. For us, this was an exciting signal of activity, especially for a targeted therapy used by itself in this type of cancer,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.

Preliminary results of the phase 2 trial were published in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adavosertib is a small molecule that inhibits the Wee1 kinase, a “gatekeeper” of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint that is highly expressed and active in several types of cancer.

“Molecular characterization of these cancers has demonstrated that they have frequent p53 mutations as well as significant alterations in oncogenes,” Dr. Liu said. “These characteristics mean that these are cancers that may both have significant dysregulation of their cell cycle combined with high levels of replication stress. We hypothesized that these cancers could therefore be particularly vulnerable to further dysregulation of the cell cycle, which can be mediated by a drug such as adavosertib, which interrupts regulation of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint by inhibiting the protein Wee1.”
 

Study details

The study enrolled women with recurrent uterine serous carcinoma. Patients were eligible if any disease component was considered to be serous, except for carcinosarcomas. The patients had a minimum of one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (median 3, range 1-7), with no upper limit on prior lines of therapy required for eligibility.

Patients with microsatellite high/deficient mismatch repair disease had to have received prior therapy with programmed death-1/ligand-1 inhibitor, or to have been deemed ineligible for immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor.

The patients received adavosertib at 300 mg daily on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 21-day cycle.

The trial would be considered successful if at least of 4 of 35 patients planned for accrual had a confirmed response or if 8 patients were progression free at 6 months. The coprimary endpoints are overall response rate of 20% or more, or a progression-free survival rate at 6 months of 30% or more.
 

Results and next steps

As of Aug. 20, 2019, the investigators had enrolled 27 patients, of whom 21 were evaluable for response.

The overall response rate was 30%, consisting of six confirmed partial responses. One additional patient had an unconfirmed response. Eleven of the 21 patients had stable disease, and 3 had disease progression.

Eleven patients remained on treatment with adavosertib at the time of data cutoff. Progression-free survival data were not mature.

The most frequent adverse events included anemia and diarrhea in 67% of patients each, nausea in 58%, and fatigue in 50%.

Frequent grade 3 or higher adverse effects included anemia, neutropenia, and syncope, all occurring in 21% of patients.

Dr. Liu said the investigators plan to present updated data from the study at a future meeting.

“We are planning additional cohorts in this study that will allow us to more deeply investigate why certain uterine serous cancer patients had very good responses to adavosertib and to identify potential biomarkers of response,” she said.

“Additionally, we plan to investigate whether adavosertib has similar activity in another type of uterine cancer, uterine carcinosarcoma, that shares many similar molecular characteristics with uterine serous carcinoma, including p53 mutations and oncogenic alterations, that might make it similarly vulnerable to targeting Wee1,” she said.

Dr. Liu disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, which supported the trial, as well as Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Liu JF et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 7.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost all patients who develop gastrointestinal side effects from oral immunotherapy for severe food allergies develop some degree of esophageal eosinophilia, but that eventually resolves in most of them after a year of treatment, according to results of a pilot study that was to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings may help identify biomarkers of persistent eosinophilia despite oral immunotherapy.

In January of this year the Food and Drug Administration approved oral immunotherapy (OIT), known as peanut allergen powder-dnfp, or peanut OIT (POIT), for severe food allergies. In an interview, lead study author Benjamin Wright, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, said OIT is a “promising proactive” treatment for food allergies. “But questions regarding the safety of immunotherapy remain,” he said. “About 30% of patients can develop GI side effects, including abdominal pain and vomiting; most concerning is that some patients develop eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).”

The pilot study was a mechanistic substudy of 20 adult patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated peanut allergies enrolled in the phase 2 Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Safety, Efficacy and Discovery trial (POISED), with 15 randomized to treatment and the remainder to placebo. They had serial gastrointestinal biopsies at baseline (n = 20), 1 year (n = 7 treatment, 3 placebo) and 2 years (n = 7 treatment, 4 placebo) to evaluate eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).

Baseline characteristics between the treatment and placebo groups were similar, with some having signs of preexisting disease. About 14% of them had clinically significant EoE, represented as a measure of more than 15 eos/hpf, Dr. Wright said. “One of the findings that was really fascinating to us was that all of the subjects had evidence of dilated intercellular spaces at baseline,” he said. “This indicates that all the subjects have some degree of epithelial barrier dysfunction before they start OIT.” Dilated intercellular spaces are a marker of inflammation.

Four patients in the treatment group had mild endoscopic findings at weeks 52 and 104, as did one patient on placebo, Dr. Wright said. A plot of eosinophil counts showed a peak at 52 weeks but near resolution at 104 weeks for all but one patient on OIT. “One of the most interesting trends that we noted was that, for most of patients, OIT-induced eosinophilia was transient and not fixed,” he said. “We noted a triangle pattern where tissue eosinophilia peaks and then resolves with the continuation of therapy.” EoE Histologic scoring system results followed a similar pattern in these patients, he added.

Also, results of the comprehensive GI Symptom Questionnaire, which assessed symptoms such as abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, refusal to eat, and vomiting, showed that patient-reported GI symptoms did not correlate with tissue eosinophilia, Dr. Wright said. “To us, that suggests that perhaps eosinophils are not central to disease pathology or symptom development in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings validate that, in a small number of patients, OIT induces EoE, Dr. Wright said. He used a treadmill analogy to explain how OIT influences epithelial remodeling in some patients. “We’re constantly renewing our esophageal epithelium every 2 weeks, and when you challenge it with an antigen (i.e., OIT), the treadmill speeds up,” he said. “There may be some patients who will fall if the treadmill gets too fast, and they develop disease.”

He added, “Distinguishing someone’s fitness before they get on the treadmill is really going be a key moving forward in determining which subjects are good participants for OIT or how to dose OIT.”

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from the Arizona Biomedical Research Consortium and Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, as well as relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Consortium for Food Allergy Research, DBV Technologies, Astellas, AnaptysBio, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Wright B et al. AAAAI, Session 2605, Abstract No. 259.

Almost all patients who develop gastrointestinal side effects from oral immunotherapy for severe food allergies develop some degree of esophageal eosinophilia, but that eventually resolves in most of them after a year of treatment, according to results of a pilot study that was to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings may help identify biomarkers of persistent eosinophilia despite oral immunotherapy.

In January of this year the Food and Drug Administration approved oral immunotherapy (OIT), known as peanut allergen powder-dnfp, or peanut OIT (POIT), for severe food allergies. In an interview, lead study author Benjamin Wright, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, said OIT is a “promising proactive” treatment for food allergies. “But questions regarding the safety of immunotherapy remain,” he said. “About 30% of patients can develop GI side effects, including abdominal pain and vomiting; most concerning is that some patients develop eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).”

The pilot study was a mechanistic substudy of 20 adult patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated peanut allergies enrolled in the phase 2 Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Safety, Efficacy and Discovery trial (POISED), with 15 randomized to treatment and the remainder to placebo. They had serial gastrointestinal biopsies at baseline (n = 20), 1 year (n = 7 treatment, 3 placebo) and 2 years (n = 7 treatment, 4 placebo) to evaluate eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).

Baseline characteristics between the treatment and placebo groups were similar, with some having signs of preexisting disease. About 14% of them had clinically significant EoE, represented as a measure of more than 15 eos/hpf, Dr. Wright said. “One of the findings that was really fascinating to us was that all of the subjects had evidence of dilated intercellular spaces at baseline,” he said. “This indicates that all the subjects have some degree of epithelial barrier dysfunction before they start OIT.” Dilated intercellular spaces are a marker of inflammation.

Four patients in the treatment group had mild endoscopic findings at weeks 52 and 104, as did one patient on placebo, Dr. Wright said. A plot of eosinophil counts showed a peak at 52 weeks but near resolution at 104 weeks for all but one patient on OIT. “One of the most interesting trends that we noted was that, for most of patients, OIT-induced eosinophilia was transient and not fixed,” he said. “We noted a triangle pattern where tissue eosinophilia peaks and then resolves with the continuation of therapy.” EoE Histologic scoring system results followed a similar pattern in these patients, he added.

Also, results of the comprehensive GI Symptom Questionnaire, which assessed symptoms such as abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, refusal to eat, and vomiting, showed that patient-reported GI symptoms did not correlate with tissue eosinophilia, Dr. Wright said. “To us, that suggests that perhaps eosinophils are not central to disease pathology or symptom development in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings validate that, in a small number of patients, OIT induces EoE, Dr. Wright said. He used a treadmill analogy to explain how OIT influences epithelial remodeling in some patients. “We’re constantly renewing our esophageal epithelium every 2 weeks, and when you challenge it with an antigen (i.e., OIT), the treadmill speeds up,” he said. “There may be some patients who will fall if the treadmill gets too fast, and they develop disease.”

He added, “Distinguishing someone’s fitness before they get on the treadmill is really going be a key moving forward in determining which subjects are good participants for OIT or how to dose OIT.”

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from the Arizona Biomedical Research Consortium and Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, as well as relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Consortium for Food Allergy Research, DBV Technologies, Astellas, AnaptysBio, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Wright B et al. AAAAI, Session 2605, Abstract No. 259.

Almost all patients who develop gastrointestinal side effects from oral immunotherapy for severe food allergies develop some degree of esophageal eosinophilia, but that eventually resolves in most of them after a year of treatment, according to results of a pilot study that was to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings may help identify biomarkers of persistent eosinophilia despite oral immunotherapy.

In January of this year the Food and Drug Administration approved oral immunotherapy (OIT), known as peanut allergen powder-dnfp, or peanut OIT (POIT), for severe food allergies. In an interview, lead study author Benjamin Wright, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, said OIT is a “promising proactive” treatment for food allergies. “But questions regarding the safety of immunotherapy remain,” he said. “About 30% of patients can develop GI side effects, including abdominal pain and vomiting; most concerning is that some patients develop eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).”

The pilot study was a mechanistic substudy of 20 adult patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated peanut allergies enrolled in the phase 2 Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Safety, Efficacy and Discovery trial (POISED), with 15 randomized to treatment and the remainder to placebo. They had serial gastrointestinal biopsies at baseline (n = 20), 1 year (n = 7 treatment, 3 placebo) and 2 years (n = 7 treatment, 4 placebo) to evaluate eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).

Baseline characteristics between the treatment and placebo groups were similar, with some having signs of preexisting disease. About 14% of them had clinically significant EoE, represented as a measure of more than 15 eos/hpf, Dr. Wright said. “One of the findings that was really fascinating to us was that all of the subjects had evidence of dilated intercellular spaces at baseline,” he said. “This indicates that all the subjects have some degree of epithelial barrier dysfunction before they start OIT.” Dilated intercellular spaces are a marker of inflammation.

Four patients in the treatment group had mild endoscopic findings at weeks 52 and 104, as did one patient on placebo, Dr. Wright said. A plot of eosinophil counts showed a peak at 52 weeks but near resolution at 104 weeks for all but one patient on OIT. “One of the most interesting trends that we noted was that, for most of patients, OIT-induced eosinophilia was transient and not fixed,” he said. “We noted a triangle pattern where tissue eosinophilia peaks and then resolves with the continuation of therapy.” EoE Histologic scoring system results followed a similar pattern in these patients, he added.

Also, results of the comprehensive GI Symptom Questionnaire, which assessed symptoms such as abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, refusal to eat, and vomiting, showed that patient-reported GI symptoms did not correlate with tissue eosinophilia, Dr. Wright said. “To us, that suggests that perhaps eosinophils are not central to disease pathology or symptom development in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings validate that, in a small number of patients, OIT induces EoE, Dr. Wright said. He used a treadmill analogy to explain how OIT influences epithelial remodeling in some patients. “We’re constantly renewing our esophageal epithelium every 2 weeks, and when you challenge it with an antigen (i.e., OIT), the treadmill speeds up,” he said. “There may be some patients who will fall if the treadmill gets too fast, and they develop disease.”

He added, “Distinguishing someone’s fitness before they get on the treadmill is really going be a key moving forward in determining which subjects are good participants for OIT or how to dose OIT.”

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from the Arizona Biomedical Research Consortium and Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, as well as relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Consortium for Food Allergy Research, DBV Technologies, Astellas, AnaptysBio, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Wright B et al. AAAAI, Session 2605, Abstract No. 259.

Loss of meibomian glands in the eye, which contribute to producing tears, appears to be associated with high rates of dry eye in individuals with diabetes and may serve as a biomarker for suboptimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Gloria Wu, MD, an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Francisco, presented the findings from a small study using infrared imaging of the eyelids in 120 patients with dry eye during a virtual press briefing held March 30, originally scheduled for the ENDO 2020 meeting.

The meibomian glands are the vertical striations that line the margins of the lower eyelids. They produce the lipid that combines with aqueous fluid from the lacrimal gland to create the tear film. Absence of meibomian glands can lead to dry eyes, eye pain, discomfort, and blurred vision.

Dry eye affects about 7% of the U.S. population, compared with 57% of people with type 1 diabetes and 70% with type 2 diabetes. Two proposed mechanisms for the phenomenon in diabetes are microischemia and inflammation, Dr. Wu said.

In her study, loss of meibomian glands was far more common among the 60 participants with dry eye and diabetes than among the 60 participants with dry eye but without diabetes, and the amount of gland loss was directly linked to A_1c level.

The findings suggest that loss of meibomian glands could serve as a diabetes biomarker, particularly in underserved areas where A_1c testing might not be readily available.

Dr. Wu noted many newer smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy 10S and iPhone 10, Xs, and 11, have infrared cameras that could help characterize dry eye in patients with diabetes.

“In the future, we hope patients can use [smartphones] and flip their own eyelids and take a picture. We hope that in rural health clinics and community health centers we can use this device that people have ... When people complain of dry eye and they have diabetes we can consider [closer diabetes monitoring],” said Dr. Wu.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, said in an interview: “It’s important for providers who care for people with diabetes to know that diabetes is associated with a high incidence of meibomian gland dysfunction leading to dry eye. That’s another reason people with diabetes need to make sure they see their eye care specialist on a regular basis.

“When I ask patients if they’ve seen their eye specialist I may add dry eye to my list of questions rather than just asking them when was the last time they went,” added Dr. Lieb, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

“I may ask them if they have symptoms of dry eye, and if they do, it’s something they need to talk about with that individual.”
 

Gland disappearance correlated with glycemic control

Dr. Wu and colleagues retrospectively reviewed electronic health records for 120 patients diagnosed with dry eye: 60 patients with and 60 patients without type 2 diabetes.

Those with diabetes were a mean age of 65 years, and were split evenly between men and women. The controls were younger, averaging 54 years, and comprised 37 men and 23 women.

Researchers performed infrared imaging (820 nm) of the lid; percentage loss of meibomian glands was calculated for each eye, then averaged per patient.

They found that 51.5% of patients in the diabetes group had lost meibomian glands, compared with just 11.3% of controls, a highly significant difference (P = .0001).

When A_1c was also assessed, only 4 of 60 participants with A_1c ≤ 5.9% lost ≥ 25% of the glands, compared with 55 of 60 participants with A_1c ≥ 6.0%.

And specifically among those with diabetes, 35 of 37 with A_1c > 6.6% lost > 40% of the glands, compared with just 12 of 23 participants with A_1c < 6.5% (all P < .0001).

“In patients with dry eye and diabetes, loss of meibomian glands is associated with elevated A_1c ... [and] may suggest a need for ... further monitoring of the patient’s diabetic condition,” the researchers noted.

Asked whether the glands could re-grow with improved glycemic control, Dr. Wu said she has not looked at that in people with diabetes, but in some patients who receive intensive treatment for dry eye with artificial tears or cyclosporine, the glands do grow back after about 6 months.

Dr. Lieb said he found the smartphone diagnostic idea “fascinating, especially in an area where you might not be able to easily measure an A_1c. Most people have access to point-of-care A_1c testing but not everybody can make it to a doctor’s office.”

And, he added, “anything that’s noninvasive has some potential benefit.”

Dr. Wu and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Loss of meibomian glands in the eye, which contribute to producing tears, appears to be associated with high rates of dry eye in individuals with diabetes and may serve as a biomarker for suboptimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Gloria Wu, MD, an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Francisco, presented the findings from a small study using infrared imaging of the eyelids in 120 patients with dry eye during a virtual press briefing held March 30, originally scheduled for the ENDO 2020 meeting.

The meibomian glands are the vertical striations that line the margins of the lower eyelids. They produce the lipid that combines with aqueous fluid from the lacrimal gland to create the tear film. Absence of meibomian glands can lead to dry eyes, eye pain, discomfort, and blurred vision.

Dry eye affects about 7% of the U.S. population, compared with 57% of people with type 1 diabetes and 70% with type 2 diabetes. Two proposed mechanisms for the phenomenon in diabetes are microischemia and inflammation, Dr. Wu said.

In her study, loss of meibomian glands was far more common among the 60 participants with dry eye and diabetes than among the 60 participants with dry eye but without diabetes, and the amount of gland loss was directly linked to A_1c level.

The findings suggest that loss of meibomian glands could serve as a diabetes biomarker, particularly in underserved areas where A_1c testing might not be readily available.

Dr. Wu noted many newer smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy 10S and iPhone 10, Xs, and 11, have infrared cameras that could help characterize dry eye in patients with diabetes.

“In the future, we hope patients can use [smartphones] and flip their own eyelids and take a picture. We hope that in rural health clinics and community health centers we can use this device that people have ... When people complain of dry eye and they have diabetes we can consider [closer diabetes monitoring],” said Dr. Wu.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, said in an interview: “It’s important for providers who care for people with diabetes to know that diabetes is associated with a high incidence of meibomian gland dysfunction leading to dry eye. That’s another reason people with diabetes need to make sure they see their eye care specialist on a regular basis.

“When I ask patients if they’ve seen their eye specialist I may add dry eye to my list of questions rather than just asking them when was the last time they went,” added Dr. Lieb, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

“I may ask them if they have symptoms of dry eye, and if they do, it’s something they need to talk about with that individual.”
 

Gland disappearance correlated with glycemic control

Dr. Wu and colleagues retrospectively reviewed electronic health records for 120 patients diagnosed with dry eye: 60 patients with and 60 patients without type 2 diabetes.

Those with diabetes were a mean age of 65 years, and were split evenly between men and women. The controls were younger, averaging 54 years, and comprised 37 men and 23 women.

Researchers performed infrared imaging (820 nm) of the lid; percentage loss of meibomian glands was calculated for each eye, then averaged per patient.

They found that 51.5% of patients in the diabetes group had lost meibomian glands, compared with just 11.3% of controls, a highly significant difference (P = .0001).

When A_1c was also assessed, only 4 of 60 participants with A_1c ≤ 5.9% lost ≥ 25% of the glands, compared with 55 of 60 participants with A_1c ≥ 6.0%.

And specifically among those with diabetes, 35 of 37 with A_1c > 6.6% lost > 40% of the glands, compared with just 12 of 23 participants with A_1c < 6.5% (all P < .0001).

“In patients with dry eye and diabetes, loss of meibomian glands is associated with elevated A_1c ... [and] may suggest a need for ... further monitoring of the patient’s diabetic condition,” the researchers noted.

Asked whether the glands could re-grow with improved glycemic control, Dr. Wu said she has not looked at that in people with diabetes, but in some patients who receive intensive treatment for dry eye with artificial tears or cyclosporine, the glands do grow back after about 6 months.

Dr. Lieb said he found the smartphone diagnostic idea “fascinating, especially in an area where you might not be able to easily measure an A_1c. Most people have access to point-of-care A_1c testing but not everybody can make it to a doctor’s office.”

And, he added, “anything that’s noninvasive has some potential benefit.”

Dr. Wu and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Loss of meibomian glands in the eye, which contribute to producing tears, appears to be associated with high rates of dry eye in individuals with diabetes and may serve as a biomarker for suboptimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Gloria Wu, MD, an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Francisco, presented the findings from a small study using infrared imaging of the eyelids in 120 patients with dry eye during a virtual press briefing held March 30, originally scheduled for the ENDO 2020 meeting.

The meibomian glands are the vertical striations that line the margins of the lower eyelids. They produce the lipid that combines with aqueous fluid from the lacrimal gland to create the tear film. Absence of meibomian glands can lead to dry eyes, eye pain, discomfort, and blurred vision.

Dry eye affects about 7% of the U.S. population, compared with 57% of people with type 1 diabetes and 70% with type 2 diabetes. Two proposed mechanisms for the phenomenon in diabetes are microischemia and inflammation, Dr. Wu said.

In her study, loss of meibomian glands was far more common among the 60 participants with dry eye and diabetes than among the 60 participants with dry eye but without diabetes, and the amount of gland loss was directly linked to A_1c level.

The findings suggest that loss of meibomian glands could serve as a diabetes biomarker, particularly in underserved areas where A_1c testing might not be readily available.

Dr. Wu noted many newer smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy 10S and iPhone 10, Xs, and 11, have infrared cameras that could help characterize dry eye in patients with diabetes.

“In the future, we hope patients can use [smartphones] and flip their own eyelids and take a picture. We hope that in rural health clinics and community health centers we can use this device that people have ... When people complain of dry eye and they have diabetes we can consider [closer diabetes monitoring],” said Dr. Wu.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, said in an interview: “It’s important for providers who care for people with diabetes to know that diabetes is associated with a high incidence of meibomian gland dysfunction leading to dry eye. That’s another reason people with diabetes need to make sure they see their eye care specialist on a regular basis.

“When I ask patients if they’ve seen their eye specialist I may add dry eye to my list of questions rather than just asking them when was the last time they went,” added Dr. Lieb, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

“I may ask them if they have symptoms of dry eye, and if they do, it’s something they need to talk about with that individual.”
 

Gland disappearance correlated with glycemic control

Dr. Wu and colleagues retrospectively reviewed electronic health records for 120 patients diagnosed with dry eye: 60 patients with and 60 patients without type 2 diabetes.

Those with diabetes were a mean age of 65 years, and were split evenly between men and women. The controls were younger, averaging 54 years, and comprised 37 men and 23 women.

Researchers performed infrared imaging (820 nm) of the lid; percentage loss of meibomian glands was calculated for each eye, then averaged per patient.

They found that 51.5% of patients in the diabetes group had lost meibomian glands, compared with just 11.3% of controls, a highly significant difference (P = .0001).

When A_1c was also assessed, only 4 of 60 participants with A_1c ≤ 5.9% lost ≥ 25% of the glands, compared with 55 of 60 participants with A_1c ≥ 6.0%.

And specifically among those with diabetes, 35 of 37 with A_1c > 6.6% lost > 40% of the glands, compared with just 12 of 23 participants with A_1c < 6.5% (all P < .0001).

“In patients with dry eye and diabetes, loss of meibomian glands is associated with elevated A_1c ... [and] may suggest a need for ... further monitoring of the patient’s diabetic condition,” the researchers noted.

Asked whether the glands could re-grow with improved glycemic control, Dr. Wu said she has not looked at that in people with diabetes, but in some patients who receive intensive treatment for dry eye with artificial tears or cyclosporine, the glands do grow back after about 6 months.

Dr. Lieb said he found the smartphone diagnostic idea “fascinating, especially in an area where you might not be able to easily measure an A_1c. Most people have access to point-of-care A_1c testing but not everybody can make it to a doctor’s office.”

And, he added, “anything that’s noninvasive has some potential benefit.”

Dr. Wu and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Endocrine Society will now hold its annual meeting online in June.

ENDO 2020, originally scheduled for March 27-31 in San Francisco, was canceled March 9 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual press briefings were held on March 30 and 31.

Now, ENDO Online 2020, scheduled for June 8-22, will include both on-demand and live programming. Registration will be complimentary for health care providers who treat endocrine conditions and researchers in the field.

“The Endocrine Society will host its largest-ever online meeting in June to ensure endocrine researchers and clinicians continue to have access to the latest scientific information, despite the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society said in an announcement.

Content will include on-demand clinical sessions, continuing medical education sessions, programming for early career endocrinologists, and a digital exhibit hall.

The exact content mix is still being worked out, Endocrine Society spokeswoman Jenni Gingery told Medscape Medical News.

Society President E. Dale Abel, MD, PhD, said: “We recognize that many of the members of our field have been mobilized and are actively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we also acknowledge that many have had to close their offices and labs.”

However, Abel, of the University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, noted, “We have received feedback that many endocrine investigators, clinicians, and trainees have indicated their desire to continue to advance their clinical knowledge and to be exposed to emerging science. We are proud to support them by virtually delivering the content they need during this challenging period.”

About 9,500 attendees were expected to attend ENDO 2020 in San Francisco.

This is only the third annual meeting cancellation in the Society’s 104-year history. The other two were both during World War II.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Endocrine Society will now hold its annual meeting online in June.

ENDO 2020, originally scheduled for March 27-31 in San Francisco, was canceled March 9 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual press briefings were held on March 30 and 31.

Now, ENDO Online 2020, scheduled for June 8-22, will include both on-demand and live programming. Registration will be complimentary for health care providers who treat endocrine conditions and researchers in the field.

“The Endocrine Society will host its largest-ever online meeting in June to ensure endocrine researchers and clinicians continue to have access to the latest scientific information, despite the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society said in an announcement.

Content will include on-demand clinical sessions, continuing medical education sessions, programming for early career endocrinologists, and a digital exhibit hall.

The exact content mix is still being worked out, Endocrine Society spokeswoman Jenni Gingery told Medscape Medical News.

Society President E. Dale Abel, MD, PhD, said: “We recognize that many of the members of our field have been mobilized and are actively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we also acknowledge that many have had to close their offices and labs.”

However, Abel, of the University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, noted, “We have received feedback that many endocrine investigators, clinicians, and trainees have indicated their desire to continue to advance their clinical knowledge and to be exposed to emerging science. We are proud to support them by virtually delivering the content they need during this challenging period.”

About 9,500 attendees were expected to attend ENDO 2020 in San Francisco.

This is only the third annual meeting cancellation in the Society’s 104-year history. The other two were both during World War II.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Endocrine Society will now hold its annual meeting online in June.

ENDO 2020, originally scheduled for March 27-31 in San Francisco, was canceled March 9 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual press briefings were held on March 30 and 31.

Now, ENDO Online 2020, scheduled for June 8-22, will include both on-demand and live programming. Registration will be complimentary for health care providers who treat endocrine conditions and researchers in the field.

“The Endocrine Society will host its largest-ever online meeting in June to ensure endocrine researchers and clinicians continue to have access to the latest scientific information, despite the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society said in an announcement.

Content will include on-demand clinical sessions, continuing medical education sessions, programming for early career endocrinologists, and a digital exhibit hall.

The exact content mix is still being worked out, Endocrine Society spokeswoman Jenni Gingery told Medscape Medical News.

Society President E. Dale Abel, MD, PhD, said: “We recognize that many of the members of our field have been mobilized and are actively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we also acknowledge that many have had to close their offices and labs.”

However, Abel, of the University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, noted, “We have received feedback that many endocrine investigators, clinicians, and trainees have indicated their desire to continue to advance their clinical knowledge and to be exposed to emerging science. We are proud to support them by virtually delivering the content they need during this challenging period.”

About 9,500 attendees were expected to attend ENDO 2020 in San Francisco.

This is only the third annual meeting cancellation in the Society’s 104-year history. The other two were both during World War II.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Diabetes patients in China who were enrolled in a team-based care intervention with clinical decision support systems significantly reduced their hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol over 18 months, compared with those who received team-based care alone.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from the Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), a cluster randomized trial conducted in 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China.

“Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where populations are large and growing and health care resources are limited,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. He, chair and professor of epidemiology at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, the prevalence of diabetes has increased rapidly in recent decades in China, from 2.5% in 1994 to 11.6% in 2010. “It was estimated that 114 million Chinese adults had diabetes in 2010,” he said. “Hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, and elevated LDL cholesterol are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death. The majority of patients with diabetes have multiple uncontrolled CVD risk factors due to suboptimal care. Diabetes and its complications further strain an already overburdened and overwhelmed health care system, especially tertiary care facilities, in China. On the other hand, community health centers are underutilized.”

In D4C, Dr. He and colleagues set out to evaluate changes in CVD risk factors among patients with diabetes after implementing a team-based care model at community health centers in Xiamen, China. They compared the effectiveness of team-based care with clinical decision support systems versus team-based care alone on CVD risk factor control among patients with diabetes at these community health centers.

The study population consisted of 10,942 patients aged 50 years and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one of the following three additional CVD risk factors: systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg; LDL cholesterol of at least 100 mg/dL, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). At the intervention clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The researchers trained the primary care physicians and nurses, and a clinical decision support system was integrated with guideline-based treatment algorithms for controlling glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids.

At the enhanced care control clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The city health commission trained the primary care physicians and nurses. The intervention lasted for 18 months in both groups.

Dr. He, the D4C study chair, reported findings from 10,942 patients: 5,394 in the intervention group and 5,548 in the enhanced care group. The mean baseline age was similar between the intervention group and the enhanced care group (a mean of 63 years), as was body mass index (a mean of 24.9 kg/m²), hemoglobin A_1c (a mean of 8.8 vs. 8.7%, respectively), LDL cholesterol (121.2 vs. 121.1 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (136.6 vs. 136.9 mm Hg), and diastolic blood pressure (79.7 vs. 79.8 mm Hg).

The researchers found patients in both groups experienced significant reductions in HbA_1c, LDL cholesterol, and BP over the 18-month follow-up, but those in the intervention group fared better in all measures. Specifically, the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was –.85% in the intervention group, compared with –.66% in the enhanced care group, while the change in LDL was –19 mg/dL, compared with –12.8 mg/dL, respectively; the change in systolic blood pressure was –8.9 mm Hg vs. –7.7 mm Hg, and the change in 10-year ASCVD risk was .57% vs. .28% (P < .0001 for all associations).

The researchers also observed that the proportions of controlled HbA_1c, LDL, and blood pressure at 18 months were higher in the intervention group, compared with the enhanced care group. Specifically, 38% of patients in the intervention group achieved glycemic control, compared with 35% of those in the enhanced care group (P =. 0006), while 48% vs. 39%, respectively, achieved control of LDL cholesterol (P < .0001), and 78% vs. 75% achieved control of blood pressure (P = .0009). In addition, 15% vs. 12% achieved control of all three risk factors at 18 months (P < .0001).

“Implementing team-based care with a clinical decision support system is an effective and sustainable strategy for diabetes control in primary care settings,” Dr. He said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “This implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other low- to middle-income countries to improve CVD risk factor control in patients with diabetes.”

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out that since only 12%-15% of study participants achieved control of all three CVD risk factors, “that leaves a great opportunity for [figuring out] how to we get the other 88% or 85% of patients to target levels. That’s going to be important as we think about cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes. The more we can use team-based care along with clinical decision support tools, the more we will continue to improve the lives of patients.”

The study was supported by the Xiamen City Health Commission. Dr. He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: He J et al. EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020, session 7A, abstract 17.

PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Diabetes patients in China who were enrolled in a team-based care intervention with clinical decision support systems significantly reduced their hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol over 18 months, compared with those who received team-based care alone.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from the Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), a cluster randomized trial conducted in 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China.

“Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where populations are large and growing and health care resources are limited,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. He, chair and professor of epidemiology at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, the prevalence of diabetes has increased rapidly in recent decades in China, from 2.5% in 1994 to 11.6% in 2010. “It was estimated that 114 million Chinese adults had diabetes in 2010,” he said. “Hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, and elevated LDL cholesterol are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death. The majority of patients with diabetes have multiple uncontrolled CVD risk factors due to suboptimal care. Diabetes and its complications further strain an already overburdened and overwhelmed health care system, especially tertiary care facilities, in China. On the other hand, community health centers are underutilized.”

In D4C, Dr. He and colleagues set out to evaluate changes in CVD risk factors among patients with diabetes after implementing a team-based care model at community health centers in Xiamen, China. They compared the effectiveness of team-based care with clinical decision support systems versus team-based care alone on CVD risk factor control among patients with diabetes at these community health centers.

The study population consisted of 10,942 patients aged 50 years and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one of the following three additional CVD risk factors: systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg; LDL cholesterol of at least 100 mg/dL, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). At the intervention clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The researchers trained the primary care physicians and nurses, and a clinical decision support system was integrated with guideline-based treatment algorithms for controlling glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids.

At the enhanced care control clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The city health commission trained the primary care physicians and nurses. The intervention lasted for 18 months in both groups.

Dr. He, the D4C study chair, reported findings from 10,942 patients: 5,394 in the intervention group and 5,548 in the enhanced care group. The mean baseline age was similar between the intervention group and the enhanced care group (a mean of 63 years), as was body mass index (a mean of 24.9 kg/m²), hemoglobin A_1c (a mean of 8.8 vs. 8.7%, respectively), LDL cholesterol (121.2 vs. 121.1 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (136.6 vs. 136.9 mm Hg), and diastolic blood pressure (79.7 vs. 79.8 mm Hg).

The researchers found patients in both groups experienced significant reductions in HbA_1c, LDL cholesterol, and BP over the 18-month follow-up, but those in the intervention group fared better in all measures. Specifically, the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was –.85% in the intervention group, compared with –.66% in the enhanced care group, while the change in LDL was –19 mg/dL, compared with –12.8 mg/dL, respectively; the change in systolic blood pressure was –8.9 mm Hg vs. –7.7 mm Hg, and the change in 10-year ASCVD risk was .57% vs. .28% (P < .0001 for all associations).

The researchers also observed that the proportions of controlled HbA_1c, LDL, and blood pressure at 18 months were higher in the intervention group, compared with the enhanced care group. Specifically, 38% of patients in the intervention group achieved glycemic control, compared with 35% of those in the enhanced care group (P =. 0006), while 48% vs. 39%, respectively, achieved control of LDL cholesterol (P < .0001), and 78% vs. 75% achieved control of blood pressure (P = .0009). In addition, 15% vs. 12% achieved control of all three risk factors at 18 months (P < .0001).

“Implementing team-based care with a clinical decision support system is an effective and sustainable strategy for diabetes control in primary care settings,” Dr. He said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “This implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other low- to middle-income countries to improve CVD risk factor control in patients with diabetes.”

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out that since only 12%-15% of study participants achieved control of all three CVD risk factors, “that leaves a great opportunity for [figuring out] how to we get the other 88% or 85% of patients to target levels. That’s going to be important as we think about cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes. The more we can use team-based care along with clinical decision support tools, the more we will continue to improve the lives of patients.”

The study was supported by the Xiamen City Health Commission. Dr. He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: He J et al. EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020, session 7A, abstract 17.

PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Diabetes patients in China who were enrolled in a team-based care intervention with clinical decision support systems significantly reduced their hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol over 18 months, compared with those who received team-based care alone.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from the Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), a cluster randomized trial conducted in 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China.

“Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where populations are large and growing and health care resources are limited,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. He, chair and professor of epidemiology at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, the prevalence of diabetes has increased rapidly in recent decades in China, from 2.5% in 1994 to 11.6% in 2010. “It was estimated that 114 million Chinese adults had diabetes in 2010,” he said. “Hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, and elevated LDL cholesterol are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death. The majority of patients with diabetes have multiple uncontrolled CVD risk factors due to suboptimal care. Diabetes and its complications further strain an already overburdened and overwhelmed health care system, especially tertiary care facilities, in China. On the other hand, community health centers are underutilized.”

In D4C, Dr. He and colleagues set out to evaluate changes in CVD risk factors among patients with diabetes after implementing a team-based care model at community health centers in Xiamen, China. They compared the effectiveness of team-based care with clinical decision support systems versus team-based care alone on CVD risk factor control among patients with diabetes at these community health centers.

The study population consisted of 10,942 patients aged 50 years and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one of the following three additional CVD risk factors: systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg; LDL cholesterol of at least 100 mg/dL, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). At the intervention clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The researchers trained the primary care physicians and nurses, and a clinical decision support system was integrated with guideline-based treatment algorithms for controlling glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids.

At the enhanced care control clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The city health commission trained the primary care physicians and nurses. The intervention lasted for 18 months in both groups.

Dr. He, the D4C study chair, reported findings from 10,942 patients: 5,394 in the intervention group and 5,548 in the enhanced care group. The mean baseline age was similar between the intervention group and the enhanced care group (a mean of 63 years), as was body mass index (a mean of 24.9 kg/m²), hemoglobin A_1c (a mean of 8.8 vs. 8.7%, respectively), LDL cholesterol (121.2 vs. 121.1 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (136.6 vs. 136.9 mm Hg), and diastolic blood pressure (79.7 vs. 79.8 mm Hg).

The researchers found patients in both groups experienced significant reductions in HbA_1c, LDL cholesterol, and BP over the 18-month follow-up, but those in the intervention group fared better in all measures. Specifically, the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was –.85% in the intervention group, compared with –.66% in the enhanced care group, while the change in LDL was –19 mg/dL, compared with –12.8 mg/dL, respectively; the change in systolic blood pressure was –8.9 mm Hg vs. –7.7 mm Hg, and the change in 10-year ASCVD risk was .57% vs. .28% (P < .0001 for all associations).

The researchers also observed that the proportions of controlled HbA_1c, LDL, and blood pressure at 18 months were higher in the intervention group, compared with the enhanced care group. Specifically, 38% of patients in the intervention group achieved glycemic control, compared with 35% of those in the enhanced care group (P =. 0006), while 48% vs. 39%, respectively, achieved control of LDL cholesterol (P < .0001), and 78% vs. 75% achieved control of blood pressure (P = .0009). In addition, 15% vs. 12% achieved control of all three risk factors at 18 months (P < .0001).

“Implementing team-based care with a clinical decision support system is an effective and sustainable strategy for diabetes control in primary care settings,” Dr. He said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “This implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other low- to middle-income countries to improve CVD risk factor control in patients with diabetes.”

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out that since only 12%-15% of study participants achieved control of all three CVD risk factors, “that leaves a great opportunity for [figuring out] how to we get the other 88% or 85% of patients to target levels. That’s going to be important as we think about cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes. The more we can use team-based care along with clinical decision support tools, the more we will continue to improve the lives of patients.”

The study was supported by the Xiamen City Health Commission. Dr. He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: He J et al. EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020, session 7A, abstract 17.

Younger women treated for uterine or ovarian cancer are at increased risk for decreased bone mineral density and osteoporosis, especially in the first year after diagnosis, and they should be screened for bone changes, investigators advise.

This recommendation is based on results from a retrospective study of women, age 65 years and younger, all of whom underwent oophorectomy and most of whom received chemotherapy. Half of the women who had normal bone mineral density (BMD) at baseline were at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis 5 years after diagnosis.

Rates of patients at risk for osteoporosis roughly doubled each year for the first 3 years of follow-up, reported study author Janelle Sobecki, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues.

Their research is detailed in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Clinicians should follow current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines regarding bone mineral density screening in women under 65 years old with cancer who have undergone therapy affecting their ovarian function [ovarian removal and/or antiestrogen therapies],” Dr. Sobecki said in an interview.

“Our findings indicate women with gynecologic cancer undergoing ovarian removal and chemotherapy may warrant sooner bone density evaluation, as early as 1 year following treatment. Bone loss screening in this population is feasible using opportunistic CT imaging,” she added.

Current guidelines recommending routine BMD evaluation every 2 years in women who received treatments impairing ovarian function are based largely on data in breast cancer patients, but there is a paucity of data on women who undergo oophorectomy and cancer therapies, both of which are known risk factors for bone loss, Dr. Sobecki noted.

“Bone loss is an important issue for women’s cancer survivorship, particularly for women who we expect to have long survival,” she said. “Identifying bone loss early is important for long-term bone health and prevention of osteoporosis in cancer survivors.”
 

Patient analysis

To get a better picture of long-term BMD changes and osteoporosis risk in younger patients, Dr. Sobecki and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with uterine or ovarian cancers who underwent oophorectomy from 2010 to 2015.

The investigators calculated CT-based L1 trabecular attenuation BMD measurements (Hounsfield units, HU) on CT scans performed at baseline and at 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and beyond 5 years after cancer diagnosis.

Osteoporosis risk was defined based on HU. Less than 100 HU was deemed “concerning” for osteoporosis, 100-150 HU was suggestive of osteopenia, and more than 150 HU indicated normal BMD.

The investigators reviewed scans for 185 patients with a median age of 55 years and a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m². Each patient had at least a baseline scan and one additional CT scan during follow-up.

The majority of patients (78.1%) had ovarian cancer, 78.1% underwent chemotherapy, and 17.1% were treated with external beam radiation. As of 2019, 118 patients (63.6%) were still alive.
 

Results and next steps

The investigators found that BMD decreased from a mean of 179.4 HU at baseline to 146.5 HU at 1 year, a significant decline (P < .001), and to 123.63 HU beyond 5 years (P < .001). As noted before, half of the patients with normal BMD at baseline were at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis at 5 years.

The proportion of patients at risk for osteoporosis at baseline was 4.3%, compared with 7.4% at 1 year, 15.7% at 3 years, 18% at 5 years, and 23.3% beyond 5 years. BMD at baseline was a significant predictor for bone loss at all time points. In multivariate analysis, chemotherapy predicted bone loss at 1 year (P = .03), and current smoking predicted BMD decrease at 5 years (^P < .01).

“We plan to further investigate the role of chemotherapy in bone loss in gynecologic cancer patients, including chemotherapy dose-related bone loss,” Dr. Sobecki said. “We also plan to investigate bone loss in older women [over the age of 65] undergoing treatment for gynecologic cancer as they may be at greater risk than their baseline age-related risk.”

This study was internally funded. Dr. Sobecki reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sobecki J et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 130.

Younger women treated for uterine or ovarian cancer are at increased risk for decreased bone mineral density and osteoporosis, especially in the first year after diagnosis, and they should be screened for bone changes, investigators advise.

This recommendation is based on results from a retrospective study of women, age 65 years and younger, all of whom underwent oophorectomy and most of whom received chemotherapy. Half of the women who had normal bone mineral density (BMD) at baseline were at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis 5 years after diagnosis.

Rates of patients at risk for osteoporosis roughly doubled each year for the first 3 years of follow-up, reported study author Janelle Sobecki, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues.

Their research is detailed in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Clinicians should follow current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines regarding bone mineral density screening in women under 65 years old with cancer who have undergone therapy affecting their ovarian function [ovarian removal and/or antiestrogen therapies],” Dr. Sobecki said in an interview.

“Our findings indicate women with gynecologic cancer undergoing ovarian removal and chemotherapy may warrant sooner bone density evaluation, as early as 1 year following treatment. Bone loss screening in this population is feasible using opportunistic CT imaging,” she added.

Current guidelines recommending routine BMD evaluation every 2 years in women who received treatments impairing ovarian function are based largely on data in breast cancer patients, but there is a paucity of data on women who undergo oophorectomy and cancer therapies, both of which are known risk factors for bone loss, Dr. Sobecki noted.

“Bone loss is an important issue for women’s cancer survivorship, particularly for women who we expect to have long survival,” she said. “Identifying bone loss early is important for long-term bone health and prevention of osteoporosis in cancer survivors.”
 

Patient analysis

To get a better picture of long-term BMD changes and osteoporosis risk in younger patients, Dr. Sobecki and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with uterine or ovarian cancers who underwent oophorectomy from 2010 to 2015.

The investigators calculated CT-based L1 trabecular attenuation BMD measurements (Hounsfield units, HU) on CT scans performed at baseline and at 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and beyond 5 years after cancer diagnosis.

Osteoporosis risk was defined based on HU. Less than 100 HU was deemed “concerning” for osteoporosis, 100-150 HU was suggestive of osteopenia, and more than 150 HU indicated normal BMD.

The investigators reviewed scans for 185 patients with a median age of 55 years and a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m². Each patient had at least a baseline scan and one additional CT scan during follow-up.

The majority of patients (78.1%) had ovarian cancer, 78.1% underwent chemotherapy, and 17.1% were treated with external beam radiation. As of 2019, 118 patients (63.6%) were still alive.
 

Results and next steps

The investigators found that BMD decreased from a mean of 179.4 HU at baseline to 146.5 HU at 1 year, a significant decline (P < .001), and to 123.63 HU beyond 5 years (P < .001). As noted before, half of the patients with normal BMD at baseline were at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis at 5 years.

The proportion of patients at risk for osteoporosis at baseline was 4.3%, compared with 7.4% at 1 year, 15.7% at 3 years, 18% at 5 years, and 23.3% beyond 5 years. BMD at baseline was a significant predictor for bone loss at all time points. In multivariate analysis, chemotherapy predicted bone loss at 1 year (P = .03), and current smoking predicted BMD decrease at 5 years (^P < .01).

“We plan to further investigate the role of chemotherapy in bone loss in gynecologic cancer patients, including chemotherapy dose-related bone loss,” Dr. Sobecki said. “We also plan to investigate bone loss in older women [over the age of 65] undergoing treatment for gynecologic cancer as they may be at greater risk than their baseline age-related risk.”

This study was internally funded. Dr. Sobecki reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sobecki J et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 130.

Younger women treated for uterine or ovarian cancer are at increased risk for decreased bone mineral density and osteoporosis, especially in the first year after diagnosis, and they should be screened for bone changes, investigators advise.

This recommendation is based on results from a retrospective study of women, age 65 years and younger, all of whom underwent oophorectomy and most of whom received chemotherapy. Half of the women who had normal bone mineral density (BMD) at baseline were at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis 5 years after diagnosis.

Rates of patients at risk for osteoporosis roughly doubled each year for the first 3 years of follow-up, reported study author Janelle Sobecki, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues.

Their research is detailed in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Clinicians should follow current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines regarding bone mineral density screening in women under 65 years old with cancer who have undergone therapy affecting their ovarian function [ovarian removal and/or antiestrogen therapies],” Dr. Sobecki said in an interview.

“Our findings indicate women with gynecologic cancer undergoing ovarian removal and chemotherapy may warrant sooner bone density evaluation, as early as 1 year following treatment. Bone loss screening in this population is feasible using opportunistic CT imaging,” she added.

Current guidelines recommending routine BMD evaluation every 2 years in women who received treatments impairing ovarian function are based largely on data in breast cancer patients, but there is a paucity of data on women who undergo oophorectomy and cancer therapies, both of which are known risk factors for bone loss, Dr. Sobecki noted.

“Bone loss is an important issue for women’s cancer survivorship, particularly for women who we expect to have long survival,” she said. “Identifying bone loss early is important for long-term bone health and prevention of osteoporosis in cancer survivors.”
 

Patient analysis

To get a better picture of long-term BMD changes and osteoporosis risk in younger patients, Dr. Sobecki and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with uterine or ovarian cancers who underwent oophorectomy from 2010 to 2015.

The investigators calculated CT-based L1 trabecular attenuation BMD measurements (Hounsfield units, HU) on CT scans performed at baseline and at 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and beyond 5 years after cancer diagnosis.

Osteoporosis risk was defined based on HU. Less than 100 HU was deemed “concerning” for osteoporosis, 100-150 HU was suggestive of osteopenia, and more than 150 HU indicated normal BMD.

The investigators reviewed scans for 185 patients with a median age of 55 years and a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m². Each patient had at least a baseline scan and one additional CT scan during follow-up.

The majority of patients (78.1%) had ovarian cancer, 78.1% underwent chemotherapy, and 17.1% were treated with external beam radiation. As of 2019, 118 patients (63.6%) were still alive.
 

Results and next steps

The investigators found that BMD decreased from a mean of 179.4 HU at baseline to 146.5 HU at 1 year, a significant decline (P < .001), and to 123.63 HU beyond 5 years (P < .001). As noted before, half of the patients with normal BMD at baseline were at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis at 5 years.

The proportion of patients at risk for osteoporosis at baseline was 4.3%, compared with 7.4% at 1 year, 15.7% at 3 years, 18% at 5 years, and 23.3% beyond 5 years. BMD at baseline was a significant predictor for bone loss at all time points. In multivariate analysis, chemotherapy predicted bone loss at 1 year (P = .03), and current smoking predicted BMD decrease at 5 years (^P < .01).

“We plan to further investigate the role of chemotherapy in bone loss in gynecologic cancer patients, including chemotherapy dose-related bone loss,” Dr. Sobecki said. “We also plan to investigate bone loss in older women [over the age of 65] undergoing treatment for gynecologic cancer as they may be at greater risk than their baseline age-related risk.”

This study was internally funded. Dr. Sobecki reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sobecki J et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 130.

Prescribing liraglutide plus lifestyle therapy for adolescents with obesity resulted in greater weight loss and greater reduction in body mass index, compared with those prescribed lifestyle therapy alone, according to findings from a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Liraglutide with lifestyle therapy also “compared favorably in terms of [body mass index] reduction,” compared with other pediatric weight-management programs in the United States and with use of orlistat, wrote Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. The study abstract was presented during a virtual news conference held by The Endocrine Society. It had been slated for presentation during ENDO 2020, the society’s annual meeting, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study included adolescents aged 12-17 years, who had obesity (BMI, ≥30 kg/m²) and had responded poorly to recommendations involving lifestyle therapy only, as judged by the site investigator and documented in the participant’s medical records. The adolescents participated at one of five sites in Belgium, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.

In the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 125 participants received 3 mg liraglutide, and 126 received placebo for 56 weeks, during which both groups received lifestyle therapy, “defined as counseling about healthy nutrition and physical activity for weight loss,” the authors wrote.

After 12-weeks of run-in, the treatment period lasted 56 weeks, with a follow-up 26 weeks after treatment ended. The liraglutide group retained 80.8% of its participants, and the placebo group, 79.4%.

At week 56, there were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, fasting lipids, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A_1c, the authors noted.

However, in the liraglutide group, 43.3% of participants lost at least 5% of their BMI, compared with 18.7% in the control group. Similarly, 26.1% of those in the liraglutide group had a BMI reduction of at least 10%, compared with 8.1% in the control group.

Participants in the liraglutide group also saw a greater reduction in BMI, compared with those in the placebo group (estimated difference, 4.64 percentage points), and those taking liraglutide lost 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) more than those receiving placebo – a relative reduction of 5%. The authors noted that a weight loss of 3%-5% “significantly improves some health-related outcomes in adults.”

In addition, the liraglutide group had a BMI standard-deviation score that was 0.22 lower than that in the placebo group (P = .002), but after the participants discontinued with the trial, “a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (0.15),” the authors reported.

“Although evidence in children is limited, a change in BMI standard-deviation score of at least 0.20 has been suggested to be clinically meaningful,” they wrote. “Some studies indicate that even temporary weight loss may have long-term benefits, but the extent to which this applies in adolescents and the extent to which long-term adherence to pharmacotherapy can be expected are unknown.”

The researchers added that the reduction in standard-deviation score seen in this study, of 0.22, was a bigger reduction than that seen in lifestyle therapy trials from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from an overview of six Cochrane reviews. Their trial also, however, had a fairly high adherence rate, over 80%.

No notable differences in cardiometabolic markers or in quality of life showed up between the liraglutide and placebo groups. The heterogeneous treatment response in this and past studies suggests the need for future trials to “characterize predictors of treatment response to identify patients who would benefit the most from treatment,” the authors wrote.

About twice as many participants taking liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (64.8% vs. 36.5%, respectively). Those symptoms, a known side effect of this drug type, included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and occurred primarily during escalation of the drug dose before then dropping in frequency. Still, the authors note that the high rate of gastrointestinal effects “suggests that this treatment may not be suitable for all patients.”

None of the adolescents receiving the placebo stopped treatment, but 10.4% of those taking liraglutide discontinued. One participant in the liraglutide group died by suicide, but the death was determined to be unrelated to the therapy.

Although the 0.22 reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score was for the intent-to-treat population, the authors calculated that the difference would have been 0.26 “if all participants had adhered to the treatment throughout the trial.”

Novo Nordisk funded the research. Several of the authors reported that they are employees of the company.

The abstract will also be published in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of the Endocrine Society. In addition to a series of news conferences on March 30-31, the society will ost ENDO Online 2020 during June 8-22, which will present programming for clinicians and researchers.

Source: Kelly AS et al. NEJM. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916038.

Prescribing liraglutide plus lifestyle therapy for adolescents with obesity resulted in greater weight loss and greater reduction in body mass index, compared with those prescribed lifestyle therapy alone, according to findings from a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Liraglutide with lifestyle therapy also “compared favorably in terms of [body mass index] reduction,” compared with other pediatric weight-management programs in the United States and with use of orlistat, wrote Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. The study abstract was presented during a virtual news conference held by The Endocrine Society. It had been slated for presentation during ENDO 2020, the society’s annual meeting, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study included adolescents aged 12-17 years, who had obesity (BMI, ≥30 kg/m²) and had responded poorly to recommendations involving lifestyle therapy only, as judged by the site investigator and documented in the participant’s medical records. The adolescents participated at one of five sites in Belgium, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.

In the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 125 participants received 3 mg liraglutide, and 126 received placebo for 56 weeks, during which both groups received lifestyle therapy, “defined as counseling about healthy nutrition and physical activity for weight loss,” the authors wrote.

After 12-weeks of run-in, the treatment period lasted 56 weeks, with a follow-up 26 weeks after treatment ended. The liraglutide group retained 80.8% of its participants, and the placebo group, 79.4%.

At week 56, there were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, fasting lipids, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A_1c, the authors noted.

However, in the liraglutide group, 43.3% of participants lost at least 5% of their BMI, compared with 18.7% in the control group. Similarly, 26.1% of those in the liraglutide group had a BMI reduction of at least 10%, compared with 8.1% in the control group.

Participants in the liraglutide group also saw a greater reduction in BMI, compared with those in the placebo group (estimated difference, 4.64 percentage points), and those taking liraglutide lost 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) more than those receiving placebo – a relative reduction of 5%. The authors noted that a weight loss of 3%-5% “significantly improves some health-related outcomes in adults.”

In addition, the liraglutide group had a BMI standard-deviation score that was 0.22 lower than that in the placebo group (P = .002), but after the participants discontinued with the trial, “a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (0.15),” the authors reported.

“Although evidence in children is limited, a change in BMI standard-deviation score of at least 0.20 has been suggested to be clinically meaningful,” they wrote. “Some studies indicate that even temporary weight loss may have long-term benefits, but the extent to which this applies in adolescents and the extent to which long-term adherence to pharmacotherapy can be expected are unknown.”

The researchers added that the reduction in standard-deviation score seen in this study, of 0.22, was a bigger reduction than that seen in lifestyle therapy trials from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from an overview of six Cochrane reviews. Their trial also, however, had a fairly high adherence rate, over 80%.

No notable differences in cardiometabolic markers or in quality of life showed up between the liraglutide and placebo groups. The heterogeneous treatment response in this and past studies suggests the need for future trials to “characterize predictors of treatment response to identify patients who would benefit the most from treatment,” the authors wrote.

About twice as many participants taking liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (64.8% vs. 36.5%, respectively). Those symptoms, a known side effect of this drug type, included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and occurred primarily during escalation of the drug dose before then dropping in frequency. Still, the authors note that the high rate of gastrointestinal effects “suggests that this treatment may not be suitable for all patients.”

None of the adolescents receiving the placebo stopped treatment, but 10.4% of those taking liraglutide discontinued. One participant in the liraglutide group died by suicide, but the death was determined to be unrelated to the therapy.

Although the 0.22 reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score was for the intent-to-treat population, the authors calculated that the difference would have been 0.26 “if all participants had adhered to the treatment throughout the trial.”

Novo Nordisk funded the research. Several of the authors reported that they are employees of the company.

The abstract will also be published in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of the Endocrine Society. In addition to a series of news conferences on March 30-31, the society will ost ENDO Online 2020 during June 8-22, which will present programming for clinicians and researchers.

Source: Kelly AS et al. NEJM. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916038.

Prescribing liraglutide plus lifestyle therapy for adolescents with obesity resulted in greater weight loss and greater reduction in body mass index, compared with those prescribed lifestyle therapy alone, according to findings from a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Liraglutide with lifestyle therapy also “compared favorably in terms of [body mass index] reduction,” compared with other pediatric weight-management programs in the United States and with use of orlistat, wrote Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. The study abstract was presented during a virtual news conference held by The Endocrine Society. It had been slated for presentation during ENDO 2020, the society’s annual meeting, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study included adolescents aged 12-17 years, who had obesity (BMI, ≥30 kg/m²) and had responded poorly to recommendations involving lifestyle therapy only, as judged by the site investigator and documented in the participant’s medical records. The adolescents participated at one of five sites in Belgium, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.

In the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 125 participants received 3 mg liraglutide, and 126 received placebo for 56 weeks, during which both groups received lifestyle therapy, “defined as counseling about healthy nutrition and physical activity for weight loss,” the authors wrote.

After 12-weeks of run-in, the treatment period lasted 56 weeks, with a follow-up 26 weeks after treatment ended. The liraglutide group retained 80.8% of its participants, and the placebo group, 79.4%.

At week 56, there were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, fasting lipids, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A_1c, the authors noted.

However, in the liraglutide group, 43.3% of participants lost at least 5% of their BMI, compared with 18.7% in the control group. Similarly, 26.1% of those in the liraglutide group had a BMI reduction of at least 10%, compared with 8.1% in the control group.

Participants in the liraglutide group also saw a greater reduction in BMI, compared with those in the placebo group (estimated difference, 4.64 percentage points), and those taking liraglutide lost 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) more than those receiving placebo – a relative reduction of 5%. The authors noted that a weight loss of 3%-5% “significantly improves some health-related outcomes in adults.”

In addition, the liraglutide group had a BMI standard-deviation score that was 0.22 lower than that in the placebo group (P = .002), but after the participants discontinued with the trial, “a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (0.15),” the authors reported.

“Although evidence in children is limited, a change in BMI standard-deviation score of at least 0.20 has been suggested to be clinically meaningful,” they wrote. “Some studies indicate that even temporary weight loss may have long-term benefits, but the extent to which this applies in adolescents and the extent to which long-term adherence to pharmacotherapy can be expected are unknown.”

The researchers added that the reduction in standard-deviation score seen in this study, of 0.22, was a bigger reduction than that seen in lifestyle therapy trials from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from an overview of six Cochrane reviews. Their trial also, however, had a fairly high adherence rate, over 80%.

No notable differences in cardiometabolic markers or in quality of life showed up between the liraglutide and placebo groups. The heterogeneous treatment response in this and past studies suggests the need for future trials to “characterize predictors of treatment response to identify patients who would benefit the most from treatment,” the authors wrote.

About twice as many participants taking liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (64.8% vs. 36.5%, respectively). Those symptoms, a known side effect of this drug type, included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and occurred primarily during escalation of the drug dose before then dropping in frequency. Still, the authors note that the high rate of gastrointestinal effects “suggests that this treatment may not be suitable for all patients.”

None of the adolescents receiving the placebo stopped treatment, but 10.4% of those taking liraglutide discontinued. One participant in the liraglutide group died by suicide, but the death was determined to be unrelated to the therapy.

Although the 0.22 reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score was for the intent-to-treat population, the authors calculated that the difference would have been 0.26 “if all participants had adhered to the treatment throughout the trial.”

Novo Nordisk funded the research. Several of the authors reported that they are employees of the company.

The abstract will also be published in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of the Endocrine Society. In addition to a series of news conferences on March 30-31, the society will ost ENDO Online 2020 during June 8-22, which will present programming for clinicians and researchers.

Source: Kelly AS et al. NEJM. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916038.