Pharmacology

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approved indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Atezolizumab is now approved as first-line monotherapy for adults with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are EGFR and ALK wild-type but have high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 stained ≥50% of tumor cells or PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering ≥10% of the tumor area).

The FDA also approved the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with NSCLC who are eligible for treatment with atezolizumab.

The drug was evaluated in the IMpower110 trial (NCT02409342), which enrolled patients with stage IV, PD-L1–positive (tumor cells [TC] ≥1% or immune cells [IC] ≥1%) NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 286) or platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 263), which consisted of carboplatin or cisplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Overall survival was superior in the atezolizumab arm, but only among patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%). The median overall survival was 20.2 months among PD-L1–high patients in the atezolizumab arm and 13.1 months among PD-L1–high patients in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms for patients in the other two PD-L1 subgroups – TC ≥5% or IC ≥5% and TC ≥1% or IC ≥1%.

Serious adverse events occurred in 28% of patients receiving atezolizumab. The most frequent of these were pneumonia (2.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.1%), and pneumonitis (2.1%). Fatal adverse events in the atezolizumab arm included unexplained death, aspiration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, mechanical ileus, sepsis, cerebral infraction, and device occlusion (one patient each).

For more details on atezolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

The FDA has granted the approval of atezolizumab to Genentech and the approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay to Ventana Medical Systems.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approved indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Atezolizumab is now approved as first-line monotherapy for adults with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are EGFR and ALK wild-type but have high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 stained ≥50% of tumor cells or PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering ≥10% of the tumor area).

The FDA also approved the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with NSCLC who are eligible for treatment with atezolizumab.

The drug was evaluated in the IMpower110 trial (NCT02409342), which enrolled patients with stage IV, PD-L1–positive (tumor cells [TC] ≥1% or immune cells [IC] ≥1%) NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 286) or platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 263), which consisted of carboplatin or cisplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Overall survival was superior in the atezolizumab arm, but only among patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%). The median overall survival was 20.2 months among PD-L1–high patients in the atezolizumab arm and 13.1 months among PD-L1–high patients in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms for patients in the other two PD-L1 subgroups – TC ≥5% or IC ≥5% and TC ≥1% or IC ≥1%.

Serious adverse events occurred in 28% of patients receiving atezolizumab. The most frequent of these were pneumonia (2.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.1%), and pneumonitis (2.1%). Fatal adverse events in the atezolizumab arm included unexplained death, aspiration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, mechanical ileus, sepsis, cerebral infraction, and device occlusion (one patient each).

For more details on atezolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

The FDA has granted the approval of atezolizumab to Genentech and the approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay to Ventana Medical Systems.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approved indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Atezolizumab is now approved as first-line monotherapy for adults with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are EGFR and ALK wild-type but have high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 stained ≥50% of tumor cells or PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering ≥10% of the tumor area).

The FDA also approved the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with NSCLC who are eligible for treatment with atezolizumab.

The drug was evaluated in the IMpower110 trial (NCT02409342), which enrolled patients with stage IV, PD-L1–positive (tumor cells [TC] ≥1% or immune cells [IC] ≥1%) NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 286) or platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 263), which consisted of carboplatin or cisplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Overall survival was superior in the atezolizumab arm, but only among patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%). The median overall survival was 20.2 months among PD-L1–high patients in the atezolizumab arm and 13.1 months among PD-L1–high patients in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms for patients in the other two PD-L1 subgroups – TC ≥5% or IC ≥5% and TC ≥1% or IC ≥1%.

Serious adverse events occurred in 28% of patients receiving atezolizumab. The most frequent of these were pneumonia (2.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.1%), and pneumonitis (2.1%). Fatal adverse events in the atezolizumab arm included unexplained death, aspiration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, mechanical ileus, sepsis, cerebral infraction, and device occlusion (one patient each).

For more details on atezolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

The FDA has granted the approval of atezolizumab to Genentech and the approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay to Ventana Medical Systems.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation, use of direct oral anticoagulants is linked to lower osteoporotic fracture risk versus warfarin, results of a recent population-based cohort study show.

iStock/Thinkstock

The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.

This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.

“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.

Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.

“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.

“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.

The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.

In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.

Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.

“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”

The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.

The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.

“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.

Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).

Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.

SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation, use of direct oral anticoagulants is linked to lower osteoporotic fracture risk versus warfarin, results of a recent population-based cohort study show.

iStock/Thinkstock

The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.

This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.

“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.

Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.

“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.

“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.

The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.

In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.

Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.

“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”

The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.

The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.

“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.

Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).

Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.

SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation, use of direct oral anticoagulants is linked to lower osteoporotic fracture risk versus warfarin, results of a recent population-based cohort study show.

iStock/Thinkstock

The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.

This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.

“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.

Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.

“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.

“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.

The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.

In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.

Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.

“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”

The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.

The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.

“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.

Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).

Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.

SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.

Mainstream media outlets have been flooded recently with reports speculating on what role, if any, vitamin D may play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Observational data comparing outcomes from various countries suggest inverse links between vitamin D levels and the severity of COVID-19 responses, as well as mortality, with the further suggestion of an effect of vitamin D on the immune response to infection.

But other studies question such a link, including any association between vitamin D concentration and differences in COVID-19 severity by ethnic group.

And while some researchers and clinicians believe people should get tested to see if they have adequate vitamin D levels during this pandemic – in particular frontline health care workers – most doctors say the best way to ensure that people have adequate levels of vitamin D during COVID-19 is to simply take supplements at currently recommended levels.

This is especially important given the fact that, during “lockdown” scenarios, many people are spending more time than usual indoors.

Clifford Rosen, MD, senior scientist at Maine Medical Center’s Research Institute in Scarborough, has been researching vitamin D for 25 years.

“There’s no randomized, controlled trial for sure, and that’s the gold standard,” he said in an interview, and “the observational data are so confounded, it’s difficult to know.”

Whether from diet or supplementation, having adequate vitamin D is important, especially for those at the highest risk of COVID-19, he said. Still, robust data supporting a role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19, or as any kind of “therapy” for the infection, are currently lacking.

Rose Anne Kenny, MD, professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College Dublin, recently coauthored an article detailing an inverse association between vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 across countries in Europe.

“At no stage are any of us saying this is a given, but there’s a probability that [vitamin D] – a low-hanging fruit – is a contributory factor and we can do something about it now,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kenny is calling for the Irish government to formally change their recommendations. “We call on the Irish government to update guidelines as a matter of urgency and encourage all adults to take [vitamin D] supplements during the COVID-19 crisis.” Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, also has not yet made this recommendation, she said.

Meanwhile, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, a practicing endocrinologist from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, said: “Vitamin D could have any of three potential roles in risk for COVID-19 and/or its severity: no role, simply a marker, or a causal factor.”

Dr. Bajaj said – as did Dr. Rosen and Dr. Kenny – that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are sorely needed to help ascertain whether there is a specific role of vitamin D.

“Until then, we should continue to follow established public health recommendations for vitamin D supplementation, in addition to following COVID-19 prevention guidance and evolving guidelines for COVID-19 treatment.”
 

What is the role of vitamin D fortification?

In their study in the Irish Medical Journal, Dr. Kenny and colleagues noted that, in Europe, despite being sunny, Spain and Northern Italy had high rates of vitamin D deficiency and have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 infection and mortality rates in the world.

But these countries do not formally fortify foods or recommend supplementation with vitamin D.

Conversely, the northern countries of Norway, Finland, and Sweden had higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure, as a result of common supplementation and formal fortification of foods. These Nordic countries also had lower levels of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Overall, the correlation between low vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 was statistically significant (P = .046), the investigators reported.

“Optimizing vitamin D status to recommendations by national and international public health agencies will certainly have ... potential benefits for COVID-19,” they concluded.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any confounders. This can absolutely be the case, but this [finding] needs to be in the mix of evidence,” Dr. Kenny said.

Dr. Kenny also noted that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been seeing a relatively low mortality from COVID-19, although she acknowledged the explanation could be that the virus spread later to those countries.

Dr. Rosen has doubts on this issue, too.

“Sure, vitamin D supplementation may have worked for [Nordic countries], their COVID-19 has been better controlled, but there’s no causality here; there’s another step to actually prove this. Other factors might be at play,” he said.

“Look at Brazil, it’s at the equator but the disease is devastating the country. Right now, I just don’t believe it.”

Does vitamin D have a role to play in immune modulation?

One theory currently circulating is that, if vitamin D does have any role to play in modulating response to COVID-19, this may be via a blunting of the immune system reaction to the virus.

In a recent preprint study, Ali Daneshkhah, PhD, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, interrogated hospital data from China, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Specifically, the risk of severe COVID-19 cases among patients with severe vitamin D deficiency was 17.3%, whereas the equivalent figure for patients with normal vitamin D levels was 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%).

“This potential effect may be attributed to vitamin D’s ability to suppress the adaptive immune system, regulating cytokine levels and thereby reducing the risk of developing severe COVID-19,” said the researchers.

Likewise, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, in a recent commentary, noted evidence from an observational study from three South Asian hospitals, in which the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was much higher among those with severe COVID-19 illness compared with those with mild illness.

“We also know that vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated,” she noted.

Dr. Rosen said he is willing to listen on the issue of a potential role of vitamin D in immune modulation.

“I’ve been a huge skeptic from the get-go, and loudly criticized the data for doing nothing. I am surprised at myself for saying there might be some effect,” he said.

“Clearly most people don’t get this [cytokine storm] but of those that do, it’s unclear why they do. Maybe if you are vitamin D sufficient, it might have some impact down the road on your response to an infection,” Dr. Rosen said. “Vitamin D may induce proteins important in modulating the function of macrophages of the immune system.”

Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected

It is also well recognized that COVID-19 disproportionately affects black and Asian minority ethnic individuals.

But on the issue of vitamin D in this context, one recent peer-reviewed study using UK Biobank data found no evidence to support a potential role for vitamin D concentration to explain susceptibility to COVID-19 infection either overall or in explaining differences between ethnic groups.

“Vitamin D is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism for the higher risk observed in black and minority ethnic individuals, and vitamin D supplements are unlikely to provide an effective intervention,” Claire Hastie, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and colleagues concluded.

But this hasn’t stopped two endocrinologists from appealing to members of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) to get their vitamin D levels tested.

The black and Asian minority ethnic population, “especially frontline staff, should get their Vitamin D₃ levels checked and get appropriate replacement as required,” said Parag Singhal, MD, of Weston General Hospital, Weston-Super-Mare, England, and David C. Anderson, a retired endocrinologist, said in a letter to BAPIO members.

Indeed, they suggested a booster dose of 100,000 IU as a one-off for black and Asian minority ethnic health care staff that should raise vitamin D levels for 2-3 months. They referred to a systematic review that concludes that “single vitamin D₃ doses ≥300,000 IU are most effective at improving vitamin D status ... for up to 3 months”.

Commenting on the idea, Dr. Rosen remarked that, in general, the high-dose 50,000-500,000 IU given as a one-off does not confer any greater benefit than a single dose of 1,000 IU per day, except that the blood levels go up quicker and higher.

“Really there is no evidence that getting to super-high levels of vitamin D confer a greater benefit than normal levels,” he said. “So if health care workers suspect vitamin D deficiency, daily doses of 1,000 IU seem reasonable; even if they miss doses, the blood levels are relatively stable.”

On the specific question of vitamin D needs in ethnic minorities, Dr. Rosen said while such individuals do have lower serum levels of vitamin D, the issue is whether there are meaningful clinical implications related to this.

“The real question is whether [ethnic minority individuals] have physiologically adapted for this in other ways because these low levels have been so for thousands of years. In fact, African Americans have lower vitamin D levels but they absolutely have better bones than [whites],” he pointed out. 
 

Testing and governmental recommendations during COVID-19

The U.S. National Institutes of Health in general advises 400 IU to 800 IU per day intake of vitamin D, depending on age, with those over 70 years requiring the highest daily dose. This will result in blood levels that are sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. There are no additional recommendations specific to vitamin D intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, however.

And Dr. Rosen pointed out that there is no evidence for mass screening of vitamin D levels among the U.S. population.

“U.S. public health guidance was pre-COVID, and I think high-risk individuals might want to think about their levels; for example, someone with inflammatory bowel disease or liver or pancreatic disease. These people are at higher risk anyway, and it could be because their vitamin D is low,” he said.

“Skip the test and ensure you are getting adequate levels of vitamin D whether via diet or supplement [400-800 IU per day],” he suggested. “It won’t harm.”

The U.K.’s Public Health England (PHE) clarified its advice on vitamin D supplementation during COVID-19. Alison Tedstone, PhD, chief nutritionist at PHE, said: “Many people are spending more time indoors and may not get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight. To protect their bone and muscle health, they should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms [400 IU] of vitamin D.”

However, “there is no sufficient evidence to support recommending Vitamin D for reducing the risk of COVID-19,” she stressed.

Dr. Bajaj is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology. He has ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly,Valeant, Canadian Collaborative Research Network, CMS Knowledge Translation, Diabetes Canada Scientific Group, LMC Healthcare,mdBriefCase,Medscape, andMeducom. Dr. Kenny, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Singhal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mainstream media outlets have been flooded recently with reports speculating on what role, if any, vitamin D may play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Observational data comparing outcomes from various countries suggest inverse links between vitamin D levels and the severity of COVID-19 responses, as well as mortality, with the further suggestion of an effect of vitamin D on the immune response to infection.

But other studies question such a link, including any association between vitamin D concentration and differences in COVID-19 severity by ethnic group.

And while some researchers and clinicians believe people should get tested to see if they have adequate vitamin D levels during this pandemic – in particular frontline health care workers – most doctors say the best way to ensure that people have adequate levels of vitamin D during COVID-19 is to simply take supplements at currently recommended levels.

This is especially important given the fact that, during “lockdown” scenarios, many people are spending more time than usual indoors.

Clifford Rosen, MD, senior scientist at Maine Medical Center’s Research Institute in Scarborough, has been researching vitamin D for 25 years.

“There’s no randomized, controlled trial for sure, and that’s the gold standard,” he said in an interview, and “the observational data are so confounded, it’s difficult to know.”

Whether from diet or supplementation, having adequate vitamin D is important, especially for those at the highest risk of COVID-19, he said. Still, robust data supporting a role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19, or as any kind of “therapy” for the infection, are currently lacking.

Rose Anne Kenny, MD, professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College Dublin, recently coauthored an article detailing an inverse association between vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 across countries in Europe.

“At no stage are any of us saying this is a given, but there’s a probability that [vitamin D] – a low-hanging fruit – is a contributory factor and we can do something about it now,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kenny is calling for the Irish government to formally change their recommendations. “We call on the Irish government to update guidelines as a matter of urgency and encourage all adults to take [vitamin D] supplements during the COVID-19 crisis.” Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, also has not yet made this recommendation, she said.

Meanwhile, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, a practicing endocrinologist from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, said: “Vitamin D could have any of three potential roles in risk for COVID-19 and/or its severity: no role, simply a marker, or a causal factor.”

Dr. Bajaj said – as did Dr. Rosen and Dr. Kenny – that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are sorely needed to help ascertain whether there is a specific role of vitamin D.

“Until then, we should continue to follow established public health recommendations for vitamin D supplementation, in addition to following COVID-19 prevention guidance and evolving guidelines for COVID-19 treatment.”
 

What is the role of vitamin D fortification?

In their study in the Irish Medical Journal, Dr. Kenny and colleagues noted that, in Europe, despite being sunny, Spain and Northern Italy had high rates of vitamin D deficiency and have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 infection and mortality rates in the world.

But these countries do not formally fortify foods or recommend supplementation with vitamin D.

Conversely, the northern countries of Norway, Finland, and Sweden had higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure, as a result of common supplementation and formal fortification of foods. These Nordic countries also had lower levels of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Overall, the correlation between low vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 was statistically significant (P = .046), the investigators reported.

“Optimizing vitamin D status to recommendations by national and international public health agencies will certainly have ... potential benefits for COVID-19,” they concluded.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any confounders. This can absolutely be the case, but this [finding] needs to be in the mix of evidence,” Dr. Kenny said.

Dr. Kenny also noted that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been seeing a relatively low mortality from COVID-19, although she acknowledged the explanation could be that the virus spread later to those countries.

Dr. Rosen has doubts on this issue, too.

“Sure, vitamin D supplementation may have worked for [Nordic countries], their COVID-19 has been better controlled, but there’s no causality here; there’s another step to actually prove this. Other factors might be at play,” he said.

“Look at Brazil, it’s at the equator but the disease is devastating the country. Right now, I just don’t believe it.”

Does vitamin D have a role to play in immune modulation?

One theory currently circulating is that, if vitamin D does have any role to play in modulating response to COVID-19, this may be via a blunting of the immune system reaction to the virus.

In a recent preprint study, Ali Daneshkhah, PhD, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, interrogated hospital data from China, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Specifically, the risk of severe COVID-19 cases among patients with severe vitamin D deficiency was 17.3%, whereas the equivalent figure for patients with normal vitamin D levels was 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%).

“This potential effect may be attributed to vitamin D’s ability to suppress the adaptive immune system, regulating cytokine levels and thereby reducing the risk of developing severe COVID-19,” said the researchers.

Likewise, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, in a recent commentary, noted evidence from an observational study from three South Asian hospitals, in which the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was much higher among those with severe COVID-19 illness compared with those with mild illness.

“We also know that vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated,” she noted.

Dr. Rosen said he is willing to listen on the issue of a potential role of vitamin D in immune modulation.

“I’ve been a huge skeptic from the get-go, and loudly criticized the data for doing nothing. I am surprised at myself for saying there might be some effect,” he said.

“Clearly most people don’t get this [cytokine storm] but of those that do, it’s unclear why they do. Maybe if you are vitamin D sufficient, it might have some impact down the road on your response to an infection,” Dr. Rosen said. “Vitamin D may induce proteins important in modulating the function of macrophages of the immune system.”

Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected

It is also well recognized that COVID-19 disproportionately affects black and Asian minority ethnic individuals.

But on the issue of vitamin D in this context, one recent peer-reviewed study using UK Biobank data found no evidence to support a potential role for vitamin D concentration to explain susceptibility to COVID-19 infection either overall or in explaining differences between ethnic groups.

“Vitamin D is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism for the higher risk observed in black and minority ethnic individuals, and vitamin D supplements are unlikely to provide an effective intervention,” Claire Hastie, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and colleagues concluded.

But this hasn’t stopped two endocrinologists from appealing to members of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) to get their vitamin D levels tested.

The black and Asian minority ethnic population, “especially frontline staff, should get their Vitamin D₃ levels checked and get appropriate replacement as required,” said Parag Singhal, MD, of Weston General Hospital, Weston-Super-Mare, England, and David C. Anderson, a retired endocrinologist, said in a letter to BAPIO members.

Indeed, they suggested a booster dose of 100,000 IU as a one-off for black and Asian minority ethnic health care staff that should raise vitamin D levels for 2-3 months. They referred to a systematic review that concludes that “single vitamin D₃ doses ≥300,000 IU are most effective at improving vitamin D status ... for up to 3 months”.

Commenting on the idea, Dr. Rosen remarked that, in general, the high-dose 50,000-500,000 IU given as a one-off does not confer any greater benefit than a single dose of 1,000 IU per day, except that the blood levels go up quicker and higher.

“Really there is no evidence that getting to super-high levels of vitamin D confer a greater benefit than normal levels,” he said. “So if health care workers suspect vitamin D deficiency, daily doses of 1,000 IU seem reasonable; even if they miss doses, the blood levels are relatively stable.”

On the specific question of vitamin D needs in ethnic minorities, Dr. Rosen said while such individuals do have lower serum levels of vitamin D, the issue is whether there are meaningful clinical implications related to this.

“The real question is whether [ethnic minority individuals] have physiologically adapted for this in other ways because these low levels have been so for thousands of years. In fact, African Americans have lower vitamin D levels but they absolutely have better bones than [whites],” he pointed out. 
 

Testing and governmental recommendations during COVID-19

The U.S. National Institutes of Health in general advises 400 IU to 800 IU per day intake of vitamin D, depending on age, with those over 70 years requiring the highest daily dose. This will result in blood levels that are sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. There are no additional recommendations specific to vitamin D intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, however.

And Dr. Rosen pointed out that there is no evidence for mass screening of vitamin D levels among the U.S. population.

“U.S. public health guidance was pre-COVID, and I think high-risk individuals might want to think about their levels; for example, someone with inflammatory bowel disease or liver or pancreatic disease. These people are at higher risk anyway, and it could be because their vitamin D is low,” he said.

“Skip the test and ensure you are getting adequate levels of vitamin D whether via diet or supplement [400-800 IU per day],” he suggested. “It won’t harm.”

The U.K.’s Public Health England (PHE) clarified its advice on vitamin D supplementation during COVID-19. Alison Tedstone, PhD, chief nutritionist at PHE, said: “Many people are spending more time indoors and may not get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight. To protect their bone and muscle health, they should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms [400 IU] of vitamin D.”

However, “there is no sufficient evidence to support recommending Vitamin D for reducing the risk of COVID-19,” she stressed.

Dr. Bajaj is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology. He has ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly,Valeant, Canadian Collaborative Research Network, CMS Knowledge Translation, Diabetes Canada Scientific Group, LMC Healthcare,mdBriefCase,Medscape, andMeducom. Dr. Kenny, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Singhal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mainstream media outlets have been flooded recently with reports speculating on what role, if any, vitamin D may play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Observational data comparing outcomes from various countries suggest inverse links between vitamin D levels and the severity of COVID-19 responses, as well as mortality, with the further suggestion of an effect of vitamin D on the immune response to infection.

But other studies question such a link, including any association between vitamin D concentration and differences in COVID-19 severity by ethnic group.

And while some researchers and clinicians believe people should get tested to see if they have adequate vitamin D levels during this pandemic – in particular frontline health care workers – most doctors say the best way to ensure that people have adequate levels of vitamin D during COVID-19 is to simply take supplements at currently recommended levels.

This is especially important given the fact that, during “lockdown” scenarios, many people are spending more time than usual indoors.

Clifford Rosen, MD, senior scientist at Maine Medical Center’s Research Institute in Scarborough, has been researching vitamin D for 25 years.

“There’s no randomized, controlled trial for sure, and that’s the gold standard,” he said in an interview, and “the observational data are so confounded, it’s difficult to know.”

Whether from diet or supplementation, having adequate vitamin D is important, especially for those at the highest risk of COVID-19, he said. Still, robust data supporting a role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19, or as any kind of “therapy” for the infection, are currently lacking.

Rose Anne Kenny, MD, professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College Dublin, recently coauthored an article detailing an inverse association between vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 across countries in Europe.

“At no stage are any of us saying this is a given, but there’s a probability that [vitamin D] – a low-hanging fruit – is a contributory factor and we can do something about it now,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kenny is calling for the Irish government to formally change their recommendations. “We call on the Irish government to update guidelines as a matter of urgency and encourage all adults to take [vitamin D] supplements during the COVID-19 crisis.” Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, also has not yet made this recommendation, she said.

Meanwhile, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, a practicing endocrinologist from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, said: “Vitamin D could have any of three potential roles in risk for COVID-19 and/or its severity: no role, simply a marker, or a causal factor.”

Dr. Bajaj said – as did Dr. Rosen and Dr. Kenny – that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are sorely needed to help ascertain whether there is a specific role of vitamin D.

“Until then, we should continue to follow established public health recommendations for vitamin D supplementation, in addition to following COVID-19 prevention guidance and evolving guidelines for COVID-19 treatment.”
 

What is the role of vitamin D fortification?

In their study in the Irish Medical Journal, Dr. Kenny and colleagues noted that, in Europe, despite being sunny, Spain and Northern Italy had high rates of vitamin D deficiency and have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 infection and mortality rates in the world.

But these countries do not formally fortify foods or recommend supplementation with vitamin D.

Conversely, the northern countries of Norway, Finland, and Sweden had higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure, as a result of common supplementation and formal fortification of foods. These Nordic countries also had lower levels of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Overall, the correlation between low vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 was statistically significant (P = .046), the investigators reported.

“Optimizing vitamin D status to recommendations by national and international public health agencies will certainly have ... potential benefits for COVID-19,” they concluded.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any confounders. This can absolutely be the case, but this [finding] needs to be in the mix of evidence,” Dr. Kenny said.

Dr. Kenny also noted that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been seeing a relatively low mortality from COVID-19, although she acknowledged the explanation could be that the virus spread later to those countries.

Dr. Rosen has doubts on this issue, too.

“Sure, vitamin D supplementation may have worked for [Nordic countries], their COVID-19 has been better controlled, but there’s no causality here; there’s another step to actually prove this. Other factors might be at play,” he said.

“Look at Brazil, it’s at the equator but the disease is devastating the country. Right now, I just don’t believe it.”

Does vitamin D have a role to play in immune modulation?

One theory currently circulating is that, if vitamin D does have any role to play in modulating response to COVID-19, this may be via a blunting of the immune system reaction to the virus.

In a recent preprint study, Ali Daneshkhah, PhD, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, interrogated hospital data from China, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Specifically, the risk of severe COVID-19 cases among patients with severe vitamin D deficiency was 17.3%, whereas the equivalent figure for patients with normal vitamin D levels was 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%).

“This potential effect may be attributed to vitamin D’s ability to suppress the adaptive immune system, regulating cytokine levels and thereby reducing the risk of developing severe COVID-19,” said the researchers.

Likewise, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, in a recent commentary, noted evidence from an observational study from three South Asian hospitals, in which the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was much higher among those with severe COVID-19 illness compared with those with mild illness.

“We also know that vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated,” she noted.

Dr. Rosen said he is willing to listen on the issue of a potential role of vitamin D in immune modulation.

“I’ve been a huge skeptic from the get-go, and loudly criticized the data for doing nothing. I am surprised at myself for saying there might be some effect,” he said.

“Clearly most people don’t get this [cytokine storm] but of those that do, it’s unclear why they do. Maybe if you are vitamin D sufficient, it might have some impact down the road on your response to an infection,” Dr. Rosen said. “Vitamin D may induce proteins important in modulating the function of macrophages of the immune system.”

Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected

It is also well recognized that COVID-19 disproportionately affects black and Asian minority ethnic individuals.

But on the issue of vitamin D in this context, one recent peer-reviewed study using UK Biobank data found no evidence to support a potential role for vitamin D concentration to explain susceptibility to COVID-19 infection either overall or in explaining differences between ethnic groups.

“Vitamin D is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism for the higher risk observed in black and minority ethnic individuals, and vitamin D supplements are unlikely to provide an effective intervention,” Claire Hastie, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and colleagues concluded.

But this hasn’t stopped two endocrinologists from appealing to members of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) to get their vitamin D levels tested.

The black and Asian minority ethnic population, “especially frontline staff, should get their Vitamin D₃ levels checked and get appropriate replacement as required,” said Parag Singhal, MD, of Weston General Hospital, Weston-Super-Mare, England, and David C. Anderson, a retired endocrinologist, said in a letter to BAPIO members.

Indeed, they suggested a booster dose of 100,000 IU as a one-off for black and Asian minority ethnic health care staff that should raise vitamin D levels for 2-3 months. They referred to a systematic review that concludes that “single vitamin D₃ doses ≥300,000 IU are most effective at improving vitamin D status ... for up to 3 months”.

Commenting on the idea, Dr. Rosen remarked that, in general, the high-dose 50,000-500,000 IU given as a one-off does not confer any greater benefit than a single dose of 1,000 IU per day, except that the blood levels go up quicker and higher.

“Really there is no evidence that getting to super-high levels of vitamin D confer a greater benefit than normal levels,” he said. “So if health care workers suspect vitamin D deficiency, daily doses of 1,000 IU seem reasonable; even if they miss doses, the blood levels are relatively stable.”

On the specific question of vitamin D needs in ethnic minorities, Dr. Rosen said while such individuals do have lower serum levels of vitamin D, the issue is whether there are meaningful clinical implications related to this.

“The real question is whether [ethnic minority individuals] have physiologically adapted for this in other ways because these low levels have been so for thousands of years. In fact, African Americans have lower vitamin D levels but they absolutely have better bones than [whites],” he pointed out. 
 

Testing and governmental recommendations during COVID-19

The U.S. National Institutes of Health in general advises 400 IU to 800 IU per day intake of vitamin D, depending on age, with those over 70 years requiring the highest daily dose. This will result in blood levels that are sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. There are no additional recommendations specific to vitamin D intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, however.

And Dr. Rosen pointed out that there is no evidence for mass screening of vitamin D levels among the U.S. population.

“U.S. public health guidance was pre-COVID, and I think high-risk individuals might want to think about their levels; for example, someone with inflammatory bowel disease or liver or pancreatic disease. These people are at higher risk anyway, and it could be because their vitamin D is low,” he said.

“Skip the test and ensure you are getting adequate levels of vitamin D whether via diet or supplement [400-800 IU per day],” he suggested. “It won’t harm.”

The U.K.’s Public Health England (PHE) clarified its advice on vitamin D supplementation during COVID-19. Alison Tedstone, PhD, chief nutritionist at PHE, said: “Many people are spending more time indoors and may not get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight. To protect their bone and muscle health, they should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms [400 IU] of vitamin D.”

However, “there is no sufficient evidence to support recommending Vitamin D for reducing the risk of COVID-19,” she stressed.

Dr. Bajaj is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology. He has ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly,Valeant, Canadian Collaborative Research Network, CMS Knowledge Translation, Diabetes Canada Scientific Group, LMC Healthcare,mdBriefCase,Medscape, andMeducom. Dr. Kenny, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Singhal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for their rheumatic disease when they became infected with COVID-19 were markedly less likely to subsequently require hospitalization, according to intriguing early evidence from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

On the other hand, those registry patients who were on 10 mg of prednisone or more daily when they got infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than were those who were not on corticosteroids, even after controlling for the severity of their rheumatic disease and other potential confounders, Jinoos Yazdany, MD, reported at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

“We saw a signal with moderate to high-dose steroids. I think it’s something we’re going to have to keep an eye out on as more data come in,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

The global registry launched on March 24, 2020, and was quickly embraced by rheumatologists from around the world. By May 12, the registry included more than 1,300 patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, all with confirmed COVID-19 infection as a requisite for enrollment; the cases were submitted by more than 300 rheumatologists in 40 countries. The registry is supported by the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism.

Dr. Yazdany, a member of the registry steering committee, described the project’s two main goals: To learn the outcomes of COVID-19–infected patients with various rheumatic diseases and to make inferences regarding the impact of the immunosuppressive and antimalarial medications widely prescribed by rheumatologists.

She presented soon-to-be-published data on the characteristics and disposition of the first 600 patients, 46% of whom were hospitalized and 9% died. A caveat regarding the registry, she noted, is that these are observational data and thus potentially subject to unrecognized confounders. Also, the registry population is skewed toward the sicker end of the COVID-19 disease spectrum because while all participants have confirmed infection, testing for the infection has been notoriously uneven. Many people are infected asymptomatically and thus may not undergo testing even where readily available.
 

Early key findings from registry

The risk factors for more severe infection resulting in hospitalization in patients with rheumatic diseases are by and large the same drivers described in the general population: older age and comorbid conditions including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and lung disease. Notably, however, patients on the equivalent of 10 mg/day of prednisone or more were at a 105% increased risk for hospitalization, compared with those not on corticosteroids after adjustment for age, comorbid conditions, and rheumatic disease severity.

Patients on a background tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor had an adjusted 60% reduction in risk of hospitalization. This apparent protective effect against more severe COVID-19 disease is mechanistically plausible: In animal studies, being on a TNF inhibitor has been associated with less severe infection following exposure to influenza virus, Dr. Yazdany observed.

COVID-infected patients on any biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had a 54% decreased risk of hospitalization. However, in this early analysis, the study was sufficiently powered only to specifically assess the impact of TNF inhibitors, since those agents were by far the most commonly used biologics. As the registry grows, it will be possible to analyze the impact of other antirheumatic medications.

Being on hydroxychloroquine or other antimalarials at the time of COVID-19 infection had no impact on hospitalization.

The only rheumatic disease diagnosis with an odds of hospitalization significantly different from that of RA patients was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Lupus patients were at 80% increased risk of hospitalization. Although this was a statistically significant difference, Dr. Yazdany cautioned against making too much of it because of the strong potential for unmeasured confounding. In particular, lupus patients as a group are known to rate on the lower end of measures of social determinants of health, a status that is an established major risk factor for COVID-19 disease.

“A strength of the global registry has been that it provides timely data that’s been very helpful for rheumatologists to rapidly dispel misinformation that has been spread about hydroxychloroquine, especially statements about lupus patients not getting COVID-19. We know from these data that’s not true,” she said.

Being on background NSAIDs at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization; in fact, NSAID users were 36% less likely to be hospitalized for their COVID-19 disease, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

Dr. Yazdany urged her fellow rheumatologists to enter their cases on the registry website: rheum-covid.org. There they can also join the registry mailing list and receive weekly updates.
 

Other recent insights on COVID-19 in rheumatology

An as-yet unpublished U.K. observational study involving electronic health record data on 17 million people included 885,000 individuals with RA, SLE, or psoriasis. After extensive statistical controlling for the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, including a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, the group with one of these autoimmune diseases had an adjusted, statistically significant 23% increased risk of hospital death because of COVID-19 infection.

“This is the largest study of its kind to date. There’s potential for unmeasured confounding and selection bias here due to who gets tested. We’ll have to see where this study lands, but I think it does suggest there’s a slightly higher mortality risk in COVID-infected patients with rheumatic disease,” according to Dr. Yazdany.

On the other hand, there have been at least eight recently published patient surveys and case series of patients with rheumatic diseases in areas of the world hardest hit by the pandemic, and they paint a consistent picture.

“What we’ve learned from these studies was the infection rate was generally in the ballpark of people in the region. It doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatically higher infection rate in people with rheumatic disease in these surveys. The hospitalized rheumatology patients had many of the familiar comorbidities. This is the first glance at how likely people are to become infected and how they fared, and I think overall the data have been quite reassuring,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for their rheumatic disease when they became infected with COVID-19 were markedly less likely to subsequently require hospitalization, according to intriguing early evidence from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

On the other hand, those registry patients who were on 10 mg of prednisone or more daily when they got infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than were those who were not on corticosteroids, even after controlling for the severity of their rheumatic disease and other potential confounders, Jinoos Yazdany, MD, reported at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

“We saw a signal with moderate to high-dose steroids. I think it’s something we’re going to have to keep an eye out on as more data come in,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

The global registry launched on March 24, 2020, and was quickly embraced by rheumatologists from around the world. By May 12, the registry included more than 1,300 patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, all with confirmed COVID-19 infection as a requisite for enrollment; the cases were submitted by more than 300 rheumatologists in 40 countries. The registry is supported by the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism.

Dr. Yazdany, a member of the registry steering committee, described the project’s two main goals: To learn the outcomes of COVID-19–infected patients with various rheumatic diseases and to make inferences regarding the impact of the immunosuppressive and antimalarial medications widely prescribed by rheumatologists.

She presented soon-to-be-published data on the characteristics and disposition of the first 600 patients, 46% of whom were hospitalized and 9% died. A caveat regarding the registry, she noted, is that these are observational data and thus potentially subject to unrecognized confounders. Also, the registry population is skewed toward the sicker end of the COVID-19 disease spectrum because while all participants have confirmed infection, testing for the infection has been notoriously uneven. Many people are infected asymptomatically and thus may not undergo testing even where readily available.
 

Early key findings from registry

The risk factors for more severe infection resulting in hospitalization in patients with rheumatic diseases are by and large the same drivers described in the general population: older age and comorbid conditions including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and lung disease. Notably, however, patients on the equivalent of 10 mg/day of prednisone or more were at a 105% increased risk for hospitalization, compared with those not on corticosteroids after adjustment for age, comorbid conditions, and rheumatic disease severity.

Patients on a background tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor had an adjusted 60% reduction in risk of hospitalization. This apparent protective effect against more severe COVID-19 disease is mechanistically plausible: In animal studies, being on a TNF inhibitor has been associated with less severe infection following exposure to influenza virus, Dr. Yazdany observed.

COVID-infected patients on any biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had a 54% decreased risk of hospitalization. However, in this early analysis, the study was sufficiently powered only to specifically assess the impact of TNF inhibitors, since those agents were by far the most commonly used biologics. As the registry grows, it will be possible to analyze the impact of other antirheumatic medications.

Being on hydroxychloroquine or other antimalarials at the time of COVID-19 infection had no impact on hospitalization.

The only rheumatic disease diagnosis with an odds of hospitalization significantly different from that of RA patients was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Lupus patients were at 80% increased risk of hospitalization. Although this was a statistically significant difference, Dr. Yazdany cautioned against making too much of it because of the strong potential for unmeasured confounding. In particular, lupus patients as a group are known to rate on the lower end of measures of social determinants of health, a status that is an established major risk factor for COVID-19 disease.

“A strength of the global registry has been that it provides timely data that’s been very helpful for rheumatologists to rapidly dispel misinformation that has been spread about hydroxychloroquine, especially statements about lupus patients not getting COVID-19. We know from these data that’s not true,” she said.

Being on background NSAIDs at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization; in fact, NSAID users were 36% less likely to be hospitalized for their COVID-19 disease, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

Dr. Yazdany urged her fellow rheumatologists to enter their cases on the registry website: rheum-covid.org. There they can also join the registry mailing list and receive weekly updates.
 

Other recent insights on COVID-19 in rheumatology

An as-yet unpublished U.K. observational study involving electronic health record data on 17 million people included 885,000 individuals with RA, SLE, or psoriasis. After extensive statistical controlling for the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, including a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, the group with one of these autoimmune diseases had an adjusted, statistically significant 23% increased risk of hospital death because of COVID-19 infection.

“This is the largest study of its kind to date. There’s potential for unmeasured confounding and selection bias here due to who gets tested. We’ll have to see where this study lands, but I think it does suggest there’s a slightly higher mortality risk in COVID-infected patients with rheumatic disease,” according to Dr. Yazdany.

On the other hand, there have been at least eight recently published patient surveys and case series of patients with rheumatic diseases in areas of the world hardest hit by the pandemic, and they paint a consistent picture.

“What we’ve learned from these studies was the infection rate was generally in the ballpark of people in the region. It doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatically higher infection rate in people with rheumatic disease in these surveys. The hospitalized rheumatology patients had many of the familiar comorbidities. This is the first glance at how likely people are to become infected and how they fared, and I think overall the data have been quite reassuring,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for their rheumatic disease when they became infected with COVID-19 were markedly less likely to subsequently require hospitalization, according to intriguing early evidence from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

On the other hand, those registry patients who were on 10 mg of prednisone or more daily when they got infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than were those who were not on corticosteroids, even after controlling for the severity of their rheumatic disease and other potential confounders, Jinoos Yazdany, MD, reported at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

“We saw a signal with moderate to high-dose steroids. I think it’s something we’re going to have to keep an eye out on as more data come in,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

The global registry launched on March 24, 2020, and was quickly embraced by rheumatologists from around the world. By May 12, the registry included more than 1,300 patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, all with confirmed COVID-19 infection as a requisite for enrollment; the cases were submitted by more than 300 rheumatologists in 40 countries. The registry is supported by the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism.

Dr. Yazdany, a member of the registry steering committee, described the project’s two main goals: To learn the outcomes of COVID-19–infected patients with various rheumatic diseases and to make inferences regarding the impact of the immunosuppressive and antimalarial medications widely prescribed by rheumatologists.

She presented soon-to-be-published data on the characteristics and disposition of the first 600 patients, 46% of whom were hospitalized and 9% died. A caveat regarding the registry, she noted, is that these are observational data and thus potentially subject to unrecognized confounders. Also, the registry population is skewed toward the sicker end of the COVID-19 disease spectrum because while all participants have confirmed infection, testing for the infection has been notoriously uneven. Many people are infected asymptomatically and thus may not undergo testing even where readily available.
 

Early key findings from registry

The risk factors for more severe infection resulting in hospitalization in patients with rheumatic diseases are by and large the same drivers described in the general population: older age and comorbid conditions including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and lung disease. Notably, however, patients on the equivalent of 10 mg/day of prednisone or more were at a 105% increased risk for hospitalization, compared with those not on corticosteroids after adjustment for age, comorbid conditions, and rheumatic disease severity.

Patients on a background tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor had an adjusted 60% reduction in risk of hospitalization. This apparent protective effect against more severe COVID-19 disease is mechanistically plausible: In animal studies, being on a TNF inhibitor has been associated with less severe infection following exposure to influenza virus, Dr. Yazdany observed.

COVID-infected patients on any biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had a 54% decreased risk of hospitalization. However, in this early analysis, the study was sufficiently powered only to specifically assess the impact of TNF inhibitors, since those agents were by far the most commonly used biologics. As the registry grows, it will be possible to analyze the impact of other antirheumatic medications.

Being on hydroxychloroquine or other antimalarials at the time of COVID-19 infection had no impact on hospitalization.

The only rheumatic disease diagnosis with an odds of hospitalization significantly different from that of RA patients was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Lupus patients were at 80% increased risk of hospitalization. Although this was a statistically significant difference, Dr. Yazdany cautioned against making too much of it because of the strong potential for unmeasured confounding. In particular, lupus patients as a group are known to rate on the lower end of measures of social determinants of health, a status that is an established major risk factor for COVID-19 disease.

“A strength of the global registry has been that it provides timely data that’s been very helpful for rheumatologists to rapidly dispel misinformation that has been spread about hydroxychloroquine, especially statements about lupus patients not getting COVID-19. We know from these data that’s not true,” she said.

Being on background NSAIDs at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization; in fact, NSAID users were 36% less likely to be hospitalized for their COVID-19 disease, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

Dr. Yazdany urged her fellow rheumatologists to enter their cases on the registry website: rheum-covid.org. There they can also join the registry mailing list and receive weekly updates.
 

Other recent insights on COVID-19 in rheumatology

An as-yet unpublished U.K. observational study involving electronic health record data on 17 million people included 885,000 individuals with RA, SLE, or psoriasis. After extensive statistical controlling for the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, including a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, the group with one of these autoimmune diseases had an adjusted, statistically significant 23% increased risk of hospital death because of COVID-19 infection.

“This is the largest study of its kind to date. There’s potential for unmeasured confounding and selection bias here due to who gets tested. We’ll have to see where this study lands, but I think it does suggest there’s a slightly higher mortality risk in COVID-infected patients with rheumatic disease,” according to Dr. Yazdany.

On the other hand, there have been at least eight recently published patient surveys and case series of patients with rheumatic diseases in areas of the world hardest hit by the pandemic, and they paint a consistent picture.

“What we’ve learned from these studies was the infection rate was generally in the ballpark of people in the region. It doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatically higher infection rate in people with rheumatic disease in these surveys. The hospitalized rheumatology patients had many of the familiar comorbidities. This is the first glance at how likely people are to become infected and how they fared, and I think overall the data have been quite reassuring,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A completely new approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is now available to clinicians through the approval of the first PARP inhibitor for use in certain patients with this disease.

Rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). The drug is indicated for use in patients who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy.

The drug is already marketed for use in ovarian cancer.

The new prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial. A confirmatory phase 3 trial, TRITON3, is currently underway.

“Standard treatment options for men with mCRPC have been limited to androgen receptor–targeting therapies, taxane chemotherapy, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T,” said Wassim Abida, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a statement.

“Rucaparib is the first in a class of drugs to become newly available to patients with mCRPC who harbor a deleterious BRCA mutation,” said Abida, who is also the principal investigator of the TRITON2 study. “Given the level and duration of responses observed with rucaparib in men with mCRPC and these mutations, it represents an important and timely new treatment option for this patient population.”
 

Other indications, another PARP inhibitor

Rucaparib is already approved for the treatment of women with advanced BRCA mutation–positive ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior chemotherapies. It is also approved as maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who demonstrate a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of BRCA status.

Another PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca), is awaiting approval for use in prostate cancer in men with BRCA mutations. That pending approval is based on results from the phase 3 PROfound trial, which was hailed as a “landmark trial” when it was presented last year. The results showed a significant improved in disease-free progression. The company recently announced that there was also a significant improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib is already approved for the maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status and as first-line maintenance treatment in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer following response to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is also approved for germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and for the maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
 

Details of the TRITON2 study

The accelerated approval for use of rucaparib in BRCA prostate cancer was based on efficacy data from the multicenter, single-arm TRITON2 clinical trial. The cohort included 62 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–positive mCRPC.

The major efficacy outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Confirmed PSA response rate was also a prespecified endpoint. Data were assessed by independent radiologic review.

For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the ORR was 44%. The ORR was similar for patients with a germline BRCA mutation.

Median duration of response was not evaluable at data cutoff but ranged from 1.7 to 24+ months. Of the 27 patients with a confirmed objective response, 15 (56%) patients showed a response that lasted 6 months or longer.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%.

The safety evaluation was based on an analysis of the 209 patients with HRD-positive mCRPC and included 115 with deleterious BRCA mutations. The most common adverse events (≥20%; grade 1-4) in the patients with BRCA mutations were fatigue/asthenia (62%), nausea (52%), anemia (43%), AST/ALT elevation (33%), decreased appetite (28%), rash (27%), constipation (27%), thrombocytopenia (25%), vomiting (22%), and diarrhea (20%).

Rucaparib has been associated with hematologic toxicity, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, MDS/AML was not observed in the TRITON2 study, regardless of HRD mutation.
 

Confirmation with TRITON3

A phase 3, randomized, open-label study, TRITON3, is currently underway and is expected to serve as the confirmatory study for the accelerated approval in mCRPC. TRITON3 is comparing rucaparib with physician’s choice of therapy in patients with mCRPC who have specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, and who have experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but have not yet received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for TRITON3 is radiographic progression-free survival.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A completely new approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is now available to clinicians through the approval of the first PARP inhibitor for use in certain patients with this disease.

Rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). The drug is indicated for use in patients who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy.

The drug is already marketed for use in ovarian cancer.

The new prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial. A confirmatory phase 3 trial, TRITON3, is currently underway.

“Standard treatment options for men with mCRPC have been limited to androgen receptor–targeting therapies, taxane chemotherapy, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T,” said Wassim Abida, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a statement.

“Rucaparib is the first in a class of drugs to become newly available to patients with mCRPC who harbor a deleterious BRCA mutation,” said Abida, who is also the principal investigator of the TRITON2 study. “Given the level and duration of responses observed with rucaparib in men with mCRPC and these mutations, it represents an important and timely new treatment option for this patient population.”
 

Other indications, another PARP inhibitor

Rucaparib is already approved for the treatment of women with advanced BRCA mutation–positive ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior chemotherapies. It is also approved as maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who demonstrate a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of BRCA status.

Another PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca), is awaiting approval for use in prostate cancer in men with BRCA mutations. That pending approval is based on results from the phase 3 PROfound trial, which was hailed as a “landmark trial” when it was presented last year. The results showed a significant improved in disease-free progression. The company recently announced that there was also a significant improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib is already approved for the maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status and as first-line maintenance treatment in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer following response to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is also approved for germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and for the maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
 

Details of the TRITON2 study

The accelerated approval for use of rucaparib in BRCA prostate cancer was based on efficacy data from the multicenter, single-arm TRITON2 clinical trial. The cohort included 62 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–positive mCRPC.

The major efficacy outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Confirmed PSA response rate was also a prespecified endpoint. Data were assessed by independent radiologic review.

For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the ORR was 44%. The ORR was similar for patients with a germline BRCA mutation.

Median duration of response was not evaluable at data cutoff but ranged from 1.7 to 24+ months. Of the 27 patients with a confirmed objective response, 15 (56%) patients showed a response that lasted 6 months or longer.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%.

The safety evaluation was based on an analysis of the 209 patients with HRD-positive mCRPC and included 115 with deleterious BRCA mutations. The most common adverse events (≥20%; grade 1-4) in the patients with BRCA mutations were fatigue/asthenia (62%), nausea (52%), anemia (43%), AST/ALT elevation (33%), decreased appetite (28%), rash (27%), constipation (27%), thrombocytopenia (25%), vomiting (22%), and diarrhea (20%).

Rucaparib has been associated with hematologic toxicity, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, MDS/AML was not observed in the TRITON2 study, regardless of HRD mutation.
 

Confirmation with TRITON3

A phase 3, randomized, open-label study, TRITON3, is currently underway and is expected to serve as the confirmatory study for the accelerated approval in mCRPC. TRITON3 is comparing rucaparib with physician’s choice of therapy in patients with mCRPC who have specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, and who have experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but have not yet received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for TRITON3 is radiographic progression-free survival.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A completely new approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is now available to clinicians through the approval of the first PARP inhibitor for use in certain patients with this disease.

Rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). The drug is indicated for use in patients who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy.

The drug is already marketed for use in ovarian cancer.

The new prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial. A confirmatory phase 3 trial, TRITON3, is currently underway.

“Standard treatment options for men with mCRPC have been limited to androgen receptor–targeting therapies, taxane chemotherapy, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T,” said Wassim Abida, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a statement.

“Rucaparib is the first in a class of drugs to become newly available to patients with mCRPC who harbor a deleterious BRCA mutation,” said Abida, who is also the principal investigator of the TRITON2 study. “Given the level and duration of responses observed with rucaparib in men with mCRPC and these mutations, it represents an important and timely new treatment option for this patient population.”
 

Other indications, another PARP inhibitor

Rucaparib is already approved for the treatment of women with advanced BRCA mutation–positive ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior chemotherapies. It is also approved as maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who demonstrate a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of BRCA status.

Another PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca), is awaiting approval for use in prostate cancer in men with BRCA mutations. That pending approval is based on results from the phase 3 PROfound trial, which was hailed as a “landmark trial” when it was presented last year. The results showed a significant improved in disease-free progression. The company recently announced that there was also a significant improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib is already approved for the maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status and as first-line maintenance treatment in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer following response to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is also approved for germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and for the maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
 

Details of the TRITON2 study

The accelerated approval for use of rucaparib in BRCA prostate cancer was based on efficacy data from the multicenter, single-arm TRITON2 clinical trial. The cohort included 62 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–positive mCRPC.

The major efficacy outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Confirmed PSA response rate was also a prespecified endpoint. Data were assessed by independent radiologic review.

For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the ORR was 44%. The ORR was similar for patients with a germline BRCA mutation.

Median duration of response was not evaluable at data cutoff but ranged from 1.7 to 24+ months. Of the 27 patients with a confirmed objective response, 15 (56%) patients showed a response that lasted 6 months or longer.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%.

The safety evaluation was based on an analysis of the 209 patients with HRD-positive mCRPC and included 115 with deleterious BRCA mutations. The most common adverse events (≥20%; grade 1-4) in the patients with BRCA mutations were fatigue/asthenia (62%), nausea (52%), anemia (43%), AST/ALT elevation (33%), decreased appetite (28%), rash (27%), constipation (27%), thrombocytopenia (25%), vomiting (22%), and diarrhea (20%).

Rucaparib has been associated with hematologic toxicity, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, MDS/AML was not observed in the TRITON2 study, regardless of HRD mutation.
 

Confirmation with TRITON3

A phase 3, randomized, open-label study, TRITON3, is currently underway and is expected to serve as the confirmatory study for the accelerated approval in mCRPC. TRITON3 is comparing rucaparib with physician’s choice of therapy in patients with mCRPC who have specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, and who have experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but have not yet received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for TRITON3 is radiographic progression-free survival.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%).

Use is limited to patients with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations.

The FDA also approved a companion diagnostic device, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies), for identifying patients appropriate for the combination treatment.

The approval is based on results from the CHECKMATE-227 study, a randomized, open-label, multipart trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC and no prior anticancer therapy.

The findings were first presented at the 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2019) annual meeting, and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In part 1a of the trial, 793 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 396) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy (n = 397). Median overall survival was 17.1 months versus 14.9 (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67, 0.94; P = .006). Confirmed overall response rate was 36% and 30%.

Median response duration was 23.2 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group versus 6.2 months in the platinum-doublet-chemotherapy group.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients receiving the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 were fatigue, rash, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea/colitis, dyspnea, cough, pruritus, nausea, and hepatitis.

At ESMO 2019, study investigator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, called the results “practice changing.”

But Marina C. Garassino, MD, head of thoracic medical oncology at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy, had a different opinion. She said that although the results “show we have a new treatment option for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC ... we don’t yet know if the findings are practice changing.”

Garassino added that more work is needed to determine which patients are optimally treated with two immunotherapies, with a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, or just with a single agent.

The recommended doses for metastatic NSCLC are nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

More information about the approval is available on the FDA website.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%).

Use is limited to patients with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations.

The FDA also approved a companion diagnostic device, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies), for identifying patients appropriate for the combination treatment.

The approval is based on results from the CHECKMATE-227 study, a randomized, open-label, multipart trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC and no prior anticancer therapy.

The findings were first presented at the 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2019) annual meeting, and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In part 1a of the trial, 793 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 396) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy (n = 397). Median overall survival was 17.1 months versus 14.9 (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67, 0.94; P = .006). Confirmed overall response rate was 36% and 30%.

Median response duration was 23.2 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group versus 6.2 months in the platinum-doublet-chemotherapy group.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients receiving the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 were fatigue, rash, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea/colitis, dyspnea, cough, pruritus, nausea, and hepatitis.

At ESMO 2019, study investigator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, called the results “practice changing.”

But Marina C. Garassino, MD, head of thoracic medical oncology at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy, had a different opinion. She said that although the results “show we have a new treatment option for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC ... we don’t yet know if the findings are practice changing.”

Garassino added that more work is needed to determine which patients are optimally treated with two immunotherapies, with a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, or just with a single agent.

The recommended doses for metastatic NSCLC are nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

More information about the approval is available on the FDA website.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%).

Use is limited to patients with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations.

The FDA also approved a companion diagnostic device, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies), for identifying patients appropriate for the combination treatment.

The approval is based on results from the CHECKMATE-227 study, a randomized, open-label, multipart trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC and no prior anticancer therapy.

The findings were first presented at the 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2019) annual meeting, and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In part 1a of the trial, 793 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 396) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy (n = 397). Median overall survival was 17.1 months versus 14.9 (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67, 0.94; P = .006). Confirmed overall response rate was 36% and 30%.

Median response duration was 23.2 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group versus 6.2 months in the platinum-doublet-chemotherapy group.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients receiving the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 were fatigue, rash, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea/colitis, dyspnea, cough, pruritus, nausea, and hepatitis.

At ESMO 2019, study investigator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, called the results “practice changing.”

But Marina C. Garassino, MD, head of thoracic medical oncology at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy, had a different opinion. She said that although the results “show we have a new treatment option for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC ... we don’t yet know if the findings are practice changing.”

Garassino added that more work is needed to determine which patients are optimally treated with two immunotherapies, with a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, or just with a single agent.

The recommended doses for metastatic NSCLC are nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

More information about the approval is available on the FDA website.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.

Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.

Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, the results do not suggest that continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs causes harm. However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.

Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
 

Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”

But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.

In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).

In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.

In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).

The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”

“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.

A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.

A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.

In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.

In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.

In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.

Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.

In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.

“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.

In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.

After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
 

Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?

A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.

Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.

“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.

“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”

The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”

Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.

“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.

He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”

Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”

Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.

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

Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.

Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.

Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, the results do not suggest that continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs causes harm. However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.

Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
 

Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”

But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.

In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).

In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.

In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).

The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”

“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.

A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.

A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.

In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.

In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.

In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.

Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.

In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.

“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.

In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.

After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
 

Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?

A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.

Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.

“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.

“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”

The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”

Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.

“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.

He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”

Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”

Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.

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

Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.

Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.

Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, the results do not suggest that continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs causes harm. However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.

Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
 

Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”

But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.

In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).

In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.

In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).

The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”

“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.

A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.

A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.

In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.

In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.

In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.

Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.

In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.

“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.

In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.

After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
 

Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?

A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.

Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.

“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.

“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”

The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”

Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.

“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.

He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”

Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”

Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.

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

Major advances in understanding the nuanced mechanisms underlying atopic dermatitis have led to a plethora of novel topical, oral, and injectable biologic agents now in advanced-stage development, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“In the next 2-3 years, we may have nine new treatments approved for atopic dermatitis,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at the University.

All nine medications he discussed are either in ongoing pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials or have completed their phase 3 developmental programs. “This is not theoretical; these are things you’re going to be using in your toolbox imminently,” he stressed.
 

Oral JAK inhibitors

The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is the intracellular signaling mediator that interacts with extracellular inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-4, -13, and -31, which are familiar to dermatologists because they’re targeted by potent biologic monoclonal antibody therapies. For example, IL-4 goes through JAK1 and 3, while IL-31 signals through JAK1 and 2.

“You really need to know the key JAK and STAT pathways involved in atopic dermatitis because it will help you determine the selectivity of the agents you’re going to be using,” the dermatologist advised.

Three oral, once-daily JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib – are in an advanced stage of development.

“Upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be the two most potent options coming to market soon for us to be thinking about,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Abrocitinib: Three positive phase 3 studies featuring this selective JAK1 inhibitor have been completed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The most recent, JADE COMPARE, featured a head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and the injectable IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor dupilumab. The results of this 837-patient study haven’t yet been formally presented at a conference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Pfizer recently announced that abrocitinib at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab (Dupixent) in the coprimary endpoints of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (that is, clear or almost clear) and disease extent based upon 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at 12 weeks. The same was true at 16 weeks.

Also, a significantly larger proportion of abrocitinib-treated patients achieved at least a 4-point reduction in itch severity as measured using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale at week 2. The company plans to file for regulatory approval later this year.

The JADE COMPARE data are exciting because of a pressing unmet need for treatment options that are even more powerful than dupilumab, Dr. Silverberg said.

Upadacitinib: This is selective JAK1 inhibitor is not as far along in the developmental pipeline as abrocitinib, but the efficacy appears to be comparable. In a phase 2 study of 126 adults with moderate to severe AD, upadacitinib at the top dose of 30 mg/day achieved efficacy results Dr. Silverberg deemed “quite extraordinary,” with a rate of IGA score of 0 or 1 of 50% at 16 weeks and an EASI 75 response rate of 69%. Those findings numerically eclipsed results seen in an earlier phase 3 pivotal trial for dupilumab, in which the IGA 0/1 rate was 37% and EASI 75 was 48%, albeit with the caveat that cross-trial comparisons must be taken with a large grain of salt.

Baricitinib: Multiple phase 3 studies of this JAK 1/2 inhibitor have reported positive results. At the top dose of 4 mg/day, baricitinib appears to be less effective than dupilumab in its earlier pivotal trials.

“This may be a good oral option for our patients. It could be similar to the Otezla [apremilast] story in psoriasis: It’s perhaps not as effective as a lot of the biologics, but patients often prefer an oral option,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Of note, in one large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of baricitinib on top of background low- or medium-potency topical steroids, the IGA 0/1 rate at 16 weeks with placebo plus topical steroids was a modest 14.7%, which underscores that this long-time workhorse topical therapy is objectively less effective than most physicians think. In contrast, the IGA 0/1 rate with baricitinib at 4 mg/day plus topical steroids was a more respectable 30.6%.

All three oral JAK inhibitors have rapid onset of efficacy, a key advantage over the biologic agents.

“The issue you have to keep in mind is safety. The safety in the atopic dermatitis population was overall quite good for all three drugs. However, safety concerns have come up with JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. I think that’s the part we watch the most in this. The efficacy has become clear. Now the question is where does the safety take us,” he said.


 

Novel injectable biologics

Nemolizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits IL-31 receptor alpha. Mounting evidence implicates IL-31 as both a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine linking the immune and neural systems.

Early on, most researchers pigeonholed IL-31 as being a key player only in the itch factor in AD. Not so. Indeed, Dr. Silverberg was the lead investigator in a recent phase 2b study of nemolizumab that demonstrated the biologic is also effective at rapidly clearing AD lesions. The study, which evaluated three different doses in 226 adults with moderate to severe AD and severe pruritus who were on background topical corticosteroids, showed that nemolizumab at 30 mg every 4 weeks trounced placebo in terms of itch reduction: The 69% drop from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale at week 16 was twice that in controls, with a significant difference apparent even at week 1.

But in addition, the 33% IGA 0/1 rate at the same time point bested the 12% rate in controls. The EASI 75 response rate was significantly higher as well – 49% versus 19% – as was the EASI 90 response of 33%, compared with 9% in controls. Moreover, nemolizumab-treated patients used close to 40% less topical steroids during the study (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;145[1]:173-82).

“This is something that’s fascinating. The study gets into the idea that a subset of atopic dermatitis patients have the itch that rashes, and perhaps if you break the itch/scratch cycle you can modify the lesions. Or the effect may even be due to the direct anti-inflammatory action of IL-31 blockade,” Dr. Silverberg observed.

It appeared that a plateau hadn’t been reached for some endpoints out at week 24, when the study ended. Japanese phase 3 studies have been completed, with what he called “great results,” and others are ongoing in the United States.

Tralokinumab: This fully human monoclonal antibody binds to IL-13, but unlike dupilumab, it doesn’t also inhibit IL-4. Tralokinumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in three pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, known as ECZTRA 1-3, that assessed it as treatment for moderate to severe AD in adults and showed an overall adverse event rate comparable with placebo. Leo Pharma, the Danish company developing the biologic, has announced it will file for marketing approval before the end of 2020. Phase 3 data would have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Denver, had it not been canceled. Dr. Silverberg said that, based upon phase 2 results, it appears tralokinumab may not be quite as effective as dupilumab in the overall AD population, but he predicted the newcomer will still play a useful role.

“The complexities of the immune system are such that some patients will respond better to one drug than another. I think we still have a lot to learn about who the patients are for these novel assets,” he said.

Lebrikizumab: This is another selective IL-13 inhibitor, but this one binds to IL-13 in a slightly different way than tralokinumab. The Food and Drug Administration granted it Fast Track status in December 2019. Twin placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of lebrikizumab as monotherapy for moderate to severe AD are ongoing, and another phase 3 trial of the biologic in combination with topical steroids is planned. Based upon the results of a phase 2b study, the highest dose studied – 250 mg every 2 weeks – appears to be at least as effective as dupilumab.
 

Nonsteroidal topical agents

These three late-stage topical creams – ruxolitinib, delgocitinib, and tapinarof – have previously received considerable coverage in Dermatology News. Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has completed a positive phase 3 trial in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate AD. Delgocitinib, a pan-JAK1/2/3 and Tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, is already approved in an ointment formulation in Japan, and the cream formulation is in phase 2 studies in the United States and Europe. Tapinarof has a unique mechanism of action – it’s an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator – and is now in phase 3 in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.

These three drugs appear to offer efficacy that’s comparable to or even better than medium-potency topical steroids, and without the notorious steroidal side effects that have caused widespread parental steroid-phobia. Potential applications for other inflammatory diseases, including vitiligo and psoriasis, are under study.

Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Major advances in understanding the nuanced mechanisms underlying atopic dermatitis have led to a plethora of novel topical, oral, and injectable biologic agents now in advanced-stage development, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“In the next 2-3 years, we may have nine new treatments approved for atopic dermatitis,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at the University.

All nine medications he discussed are either in ongoing pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials or have completed their phase 3 developmental programs. “This is not theoretical; these are things you’re going to be using in your toolbox imminently,” he stressed.
 

Oral JAK inhibitors

The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is the intracellular signaling mediator that interacts with extracellular inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-4, -13, and -31, which are familiar to dermatologists because they’re targeted by potent biologic monoclonal antibody therapies. For example, IL-4 goes through JAK1 and 3, while IL-31 signals through JAK1 and 2.

“You really need to know the key JAK and STAT pathways involved in atopic dermatitis because it will help you determine the selectivity of the agents you’re going to be using,” the dermatologist advised.

Three oral, once-daily JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib – are in an advanced stage of development.

“Upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be the two most potent options coming to market soon for us to be thinking about,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Abrocitinib: Three positive phase 3 studies featuring this selective JAK1 inhibitor have been completed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The most recent, JADE COMPARE, featured a head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and the injectable IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor dupilumab. The results of this 837-patient study haven’t yet been formally presented at a conference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Pfizer recently announced that abrocitinib at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab (Dupixent) in the coprimary endpoints of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (that is, clear or almost clear) and disease extent based upon 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at 12 weeks. The same was true at 16 weeks.

Also, a significantly larger proportion of abrocitinib-treated patients achieved at least a 4-point reduction in itch severity as measured using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale at week 2. The company plans to file for regulatory approval later this year.

The JADE COMPARE data are exciting because of a pressing unmet need for treatment options that are even more powerful than dupilumab, Dr. Silverberg said.

Upadacitinib: This is selective JAK1 inhibitor is not as far along in the developmental pipeline as abrocitinib, but the efficacy appears to be comparable. In a phase 2 study of 126 adults with moderate to severe AD, upadacitinib at the top dose of 30 mg/day achieved efficacy results Dr. Silverberg deemed “quite extraordinary,” with a rate of IGA score of 0 or 1 of 50% at 16 weeks and an EASI 75 response rate of 69%. Those findings numerically eclipsed results seen in an earlier phase 3 pivotal trial for dupilumab, in which the IGA 0/1 rate was 37% and EASI 75 was 48%, albeit with the caveat that cross-trial comparisons must be taken with a large grain of salt.

Baricitinib: Multiple phase 3 studies of this JAK 1/2 inhibitor have reported positive results. At the top dose of 4 mg/day, baricitinib appears to be less effective than dupilumab in its earlier pivotal trials.

“This may be a good oral option for our patients. It could be similar to the Otezla [apremilast] story in psoriasis: It’s perhaps not as effective as a lot of the biologics, but patients often prefer an oral option,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Of note, in one large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of baricitinib on top of background low- or medium-potency topical steroids, the IGA 0/1 rate at 16 weeks with placebo plus topical steroids was a modest 14.7%, which underscores that this long-time workhorse topical therapy is objectively less effective than most physicians think. In contrast, the IGA 0/1 rate with baricitinib at 4 mg/day plus topical steroids was a more respectable 30.6%.

All three oral JAK inhibitors have rapid onset of efficacy, a key advantage over the biologic agents.

“The issue you have to keep in mind is safety. The safety in the atopic dermatitis population was overall quite good for all three drugs. However, safety concerns have come up with JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. I think that’s the part we watch the most in this. The efficacy has become clear. Now the question is where does the safety take us,” he said.


 

Novel injectable biologics

Nemolizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits IL-31 receptor alpha. Mounting evidence implicates IL-31 as both a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine linking the immune and neural systems.

Early on, most researchers pigeonholed IL-31 as being a key player only in the itch factor in AD. Not so. Indeed, Dr. Silverberg was the lead investigator in a recent phase 2b study of nemolizumab that demonstrated the biologic is also effective at rapidly clearing AD lesions. The study, which evaluated three different doses in 226 adults with moderate to severe AD and severe pruritus who were on background topical corticosteroids, showed that nemolizumab at 30 mg every 4 weeks trounced placebo in terms of itch reduction: The 69% drop from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale at week 16 was twice that in controls, with a significant difference apparent even at week 1.

But in addition, the 33% IGA 0/1 rate at the same time point bested the 12% rate in controls. The EASI 75 response rate was significantly higher as well – 49% versus 19% – as was the EASI 90 response of 33%, compared with 9% in controls. Moreover, nemolizumab-treated patients used close to 40% less topical steroids during the study (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;145[1]:173-82).

“This is something that’s fascinating. The study gets into the idea that a subset of atopic dermatitis patients have the itch that rashes, and perhaps if you break the itch/scratch cycle you can modify the lesions. Or the effect may even be due to the direct anti-inflammatory action of IL-31 blockade,” Dr. Silverberg observed.

It appeared that a plateau hadn’t been reached for some endpoints out at week 24, when the study ended. Japanese phase 3 studies have been completed, with what he called “great results,” and others are ongoing in the United States.

Tralokinumab: This fully human monoclonal antibody binds to IL-13, but unlike dupilumab, it doesn’t also inhibit IL-4. Tralokinumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in three pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, known as ECZTRA 1-3, that assessed it as treatment for moderate to severe AD in adults and showed an overall adverse event rate comparable with placebo. Leo Pharma, the Danish company developing the biologic, has announced it will file for marketing approval before the end of 2020. Phase 3 data would have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Denver, had it not been canceled. Dr. Silverberg said that, based upon phase 2 results, it appears tralokinumab may not be quite as effective as dupilumab in the overall AD population, but he predicted the newcomer will still play a useful role.

“The complexities of the immune system are such that some patients will respond better to one drug than another. I think we still have a lot to learn about who the patients are for these novel assets,” he said.

Lebrikizumab: This is another selective IL-13 inhibitor, but this one binds to IL-13 in a slightly different way than tralokinumab. The Food and Drug Administration granted it Fast Track status in December 2019. Twin placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of lebrikizumab as monotherapy for moderate to severe AD are ongoing, and another phase 3 trial of the biologic in combination with topical steroids is planned. Based upon the results of a phase 2b study, the highest dose studied – 250 mg every 2 weeks – appears to be at least as effective as dupilumab.
 

Nonsteroidal topical agents

These three late-stage topical creams – ruxolitinib, delgocitinib, and tapinarof – have previously received considerable coverage in Dermatology News. Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has completed a positive phase 3 trial in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate AD. Delgocitinib, a pan-JAK1/2/3 and Tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, is already approved in an ointment formulation in Japan, and the cream formulation is in phase 2 studies in the United States and Europe. Tapinarof has a unique mechanism of action – it’s an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator – and is now in phase 3 in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.

These three drugs appear to offer efficacy that’s comparable to or even better than medium-potency topical steroids, and without the notorious steroidal side effects that have caused widespread parental steroid-phobia. Potential applications for other inflammatory diseases, including vitiligo and psoriasis, are under study.

Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Major advances in understanding the nuanced mechanisms underlying atopic dermatitis have led to a plethora of novel topical, oral, and injectable biologic agents now in advanced-stage development, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“In the next 2-3 years, we may have nine new treatments approved for atopic dermatitis,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at the University.

All nine medications he discussed are either in ongoing pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials or have completed their phase 3 developmental programs. “This is not theoretical; these are things you’re going to be using in your toolbox imminently,” he stressed.
 

Oral JAK inhibitors

The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is the intracellular signaling mediator that interacts with extracellular inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-4, -13, and -31, which are familiar to dermatologists because they’re targeted by potent biologic monoclonal antibody therapies. For example, IL-4 goes through JAK1 and 3, while IL-31 signals through JAK1 and 2.

“You really need to know the key JAK and STAT pathways involved in atopic dermatitis because it will help you determine the selectivity of the agents you’re going to be using,” the dermatologist advised.

Three oral, once-daily JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib – are in an advanced stage of development.

“Upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be the two most potent options coming to market soon for us to be thinking about,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Abrocitinib: Three positive phase 3 studies featuring this selective JAK1 inhibitor have been completed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The most recent, JADE COMPARE, featured a head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and the injectable IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor dupilumab. The results of this 837-patient study haven’t yet been formally presented at a conference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Pfizer recently announced that abrocitinib at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab (Dupixent) in the coprimary endpoints of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (that is, clear or almost clear) and disease extent based upon 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at 12 weeks. The same was true at 16 weeks.

Also, a significantly larger proportion of abrocitinib-treated patients achieved at least a 4-point reduction in itch severity as measured using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale at week 2. The company plans to file for regulatory approval later this year.

The JADE COMPARE data are exciting because of a pressing unmet need for treatment options that are even more powerful than dupilumab, Dr. Silverberg said.

Upadacitinib: This is selective JAK1 inhibitor is not as far along in the developmental pipeline as abrocitinib, but the efficacy appears to be comparable. In a phase 2 study of 126 adults with moderate to severe AD, upadacitinib at the top dose of 30 mg/day achieved efficacy results Dr. Silverberg deemed “quite extraordinary,” with a rate of IGA score of 0 or 1 of 50% at 16 weeks and an EASI 75 response rate of 69%. Those findings numerically eclipsed results seen in an earlier phase 3 pivotal trial for dupilumab, in which the IGA 0/1 rate was 37% and EASI 75 was 48%, albeit with the caveat that cross-trial comparisons must be taken with a large grain of salt.

Baricitinib: Multiple phase 3 studies of this JAK 1/2 inhibitor have reported positive results. At the top dose of 4 mg/day, baricitinib appears to be less effective than dupilumab in its earlier pivotal trials.

“This may be a good oral option for our patients. It could be similar to the Otezla [apremilast] story in psoriasis: It’s perhaps not as effective as a lot of the biologics, but patients often prefer an oral option,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Of note, in one large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of baricitinib on top of background low- or medium-potency topical steroids, the IGA 0/1 rate at 16 weeks with placebo plus topical steroids was a modest 14.7%, which underscores that this long-time workhorse topical therapy is objectively less effective than most physicians think. In contrast, the IGA 0/1 rate with baricitinib at 4 mg/day plus topical steroids was a more respectable 30.6%.

All three oral JAK inhibitors have rapid onset of efficacy, a key advantage over the biologic agents.

“The issue you have to keep in mind is safety. The safety in the atopic dermatitis population was overall quite good for all three drugs. However, safety concerns have come up with JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. I think that’s the part we watch the most in this. The efficacy has become clear. Now the question is where does the safety take us,” he said.


 

Novel injectable biologics

Nemolizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits IL-31 receptor alpha. Mounting evidence implicates IL-31 as both a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine linking the immune and neural systems.

Early on, most researchers pigeonholed IL-31 as being a key player only in the itch factor in AD. Not so. Indeed, Dr. Silverberg was the lead investigator in a recent phase 2b study of nemolizumab that demonstrated the biologic is also effective at rapidly clearing AD lesions. The study, which evaluated three different doses in 226 adults with moderate to severe AD and severe pruritus who were on background topical corticosteroids, showed that nemolizumab at 30 mg every 4 weeks trounced placebo in terms of itch reduction: The 69% drop from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale at week 16 was twice that in controls, with a significant difference apparent even at week 1.

But in addition, the 33% IGA 0/1 rate at the same time point bested the 12% rate in controls. The EASI 75 response rate was significantly higher as well – 49% versus 19% – as was the EASI 90 response of 33%, compared with 9% in controls. Moreover, nemolizumab-treated patients used close to 40% less topical steroids during the study (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;145[1]:173-82).

“This is something that’s fascinating. The study gets into the idea that a subset of atopic dermatitis patients have the itch that rashes, and perhaps if you break the itch/scratch cycle you can modify the lesions. Or the effect may even be due to the direct anti-inflammatory action of IL-31 blockade,” Dr. Silverberg observed.

It appeared that a plateau hadn’t been reached for some endpoints out at week 24, when the study ended. Japanese phase 3 studies have been completed, with what he called “great results,” and others are ongoing in the United States.

Tralokinumab: This fully human monoclonal antibody binds to IL-13, but unlike dupilumab, it doesn’t also inhibit IL-4. Tralokinumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in three pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, known as ECZTRA 1-3, that assessed it as treatment for moderate to severe AD in adults and showed an overall adverse event rate comparable with placebo. Leo Pharma, the Danish company developing the biologic, has announced it will file for marketing approval before the end of 2020. Phase 3 data would have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Denver, had it not been canceled. Dr. Silverberg said that, based upon phase 2 results, it appears tralokinumab may not be quite as effective as dupilumab in the overall AD population, but he predicted the newcomer will still play a useful role.

“The complexities of the immune system are such that some patients will respond better to one drug than another. I think we still have a lot to learn about who the patients are for these novel assets,” he said.

Lebrikizumab: This is another selective IL-13 inhibitor, but this one binds to IL-13 in a slightly different way than tralokinumab. The Food and Drug Administration granted it Fast Track status in December 2019. Twin placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of lebrikizumab as monotherapy for moderate to severe AD are ongoing, and another phase 3 trial of the biologic in combination with topical steroids is planned. Based upon the results of a phase 2b study, the highest dose studied – 250 mg every 2 weeks – appears to be at least as effective as dupilumab.
 

Nonsteroidal topical agents

These three late-stage topical creams – ruxolitinib, delgocitinib, and tapinarof – have previously received considerable coverage in Dermatology News. Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has completed a positive phase 3 trial in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate AD. Delgocitinib, a pan-JAK1/2/3 and Tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, is already approved in an ointment formulation in Japan, and the cream formulation is in phase 2 studies in the United States and Europe. Tapinarof has a unique mechanism of action – it’s an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator – and is now in phase 3 in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.

These three drugs appear to offer efficacy that’s comparable to or even better than medium-potency topical steroids, and without the notorious steroidal side effects that have caused widespread parental steroid-phobia. Potential applications for other inflammatory diseases, including vitiligo and psoriasis, are under study.

Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

bjancin@mdedge.com