Pharmacology

SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).

Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.

Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.

“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”

The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT₂ receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT₂ receptors.

HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.

At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).

Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.

In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.

By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.

The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.

When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.

The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.

Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”

Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.

The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.

Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.

After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.

This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.

Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.

The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.

Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.

“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1

SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).

Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.

Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.

“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”

The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT₂ receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT₂ receptors.

HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.

At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).

Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.

In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.

By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.

The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.

When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.

The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.

Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”

Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.

The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.

Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.

After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.

This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.

Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.

The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.

Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.

“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1

SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).

Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.

Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.

“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”

The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT₂ receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT₂ receptors.

HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.

At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).

Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.

In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.

By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.

The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.

When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.

The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.

Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”

Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.

The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.

Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.

After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.

This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.

Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.

The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.

Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.

“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1

SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.

At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).

Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.

Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.

Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”

Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”

But not all of the findings were grim.

“There was broad recognition that the status quo was unacceptable, and emergency medicine physicians were excited about an opportunity to do more,” Dr. Edelman said.

According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.

“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.

“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.

Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”

ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.

Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.

At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).

Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.

Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.

Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”

Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”

But not all of the findings were grim.

“There was broad recognition that the status quo was unacceptable, and emergency medicine physicians were excited about an opportunity to do more,” Dr. Edelman said.

According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.

“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.

“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.

Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”

ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.

Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.

At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).

Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.

Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.

Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”

Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”

But not all of the findings were grim.

“There was broad recognition that the status quo was unacceptable, and emergency medicine physicians were excited about an opportunity to do more,” Dr. Edelman said.

According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.

“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.

“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.

Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”

ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.

Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether forms of the type 2 diabetes drug metformin that are available in the United States contain the genotoxic nitrosamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.

The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.

NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.

Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.

The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.

“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether forms of the type 2 diabetes drug metformin that are available in the United States contain the genotoxic nitrosamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.

The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.

NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.

Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.

The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.

“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether forms of the type 2 diabetes drug metformin that are available in the United States contain the genotoxic nitrosamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.

The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.

NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.

Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.

The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.

“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.

In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.

In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),¹ which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.² Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.³ VNS⁴ remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.

It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.

Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”⁵ and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”⁶Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.

We are now in a renaissance period⁷ where psychedelic drugs are being reestablished as a new approach to very important public health problems. With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study⁸ with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.

Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,⁹ as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.¹⁰ It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.

The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,¹¹ the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.¹² The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide¹³ (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.

Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.

References

1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.

2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.

3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.

4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.

5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.

6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).

7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.

8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.

9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.

10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.

11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.

12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.

13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.

*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.

In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.

In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),¹ which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.² Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.³ VNS⁴ remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.

It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.

Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”⁵ and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”⁶Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.

We are now in a renaissance period⁷ where psychedelic drugs are being reestablished as a new approach to very important public health problems. With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study⁸ with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.

Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,⁹ as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.¹⁰ It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.

The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,¹¹ the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.¹² The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide¹³ (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.

Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.

References

1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.

2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.

3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.

4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.

5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.

6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).

7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.

8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.

9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.

10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.

11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.

12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.

13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.

*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.

In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.

In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),¹ which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.² Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.³ VNS⁴ remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.

It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.

Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”⁵ and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”⁶Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.

We are now in a renaissance period⁷ where psychedelic drugs are being reestablished as a new approach to very important public health problems. With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study⁸ with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.

Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,⁹ as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.¹⁰ It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.

The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,¹¹ the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.¹² The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide¹³ (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.

Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.

References

1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.

2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.

3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.

4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.

5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.

6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).

7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.

8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.

9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.

10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.

11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.

12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.

13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.

*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.

ORLANDO – For a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who has discontinued venetoclax, choosing the best next therapy may depend on what novel agents the patient was exposed to and why they discontinued them, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, with the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

If the patient is Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor naive, then use of a BTK inhibitor after venetoclax would be supported, Dr. Mato said, by the high overall response rates and durable remissions that he and his coinvestigators documented in a retrospective, multicenter study designed specifically to address the gap in knowledge regarding what to use after venetoclax.

If the patient is BTK inhibitor exposed, then the reason for discontinuation needs to be considered before going with that venetoclax-to-BTK inhibitor sequence, Dr. Mato said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“In patients with resistance to a BTK inhibitor, the sequence was not supported – it did not appear to be effective,” he said. “However, in the setting of intolerance, an alternate BTK inhibitor could be considered.”

The study did not support a venetoclax-to-PI3K inhibitor sequence in PI3K-naive patients, he added, noting that remissions did not appear to be durable, suggesting a potential overlap in resistance mechanisms between agents.

All told, the most effective therapies for in the postvenetoclax setting included the use of a BTK inhibitor in BTK inhibitor–naive or previously responsive patients, and allogeneic transplant following double novel-agent exposure.

“These data may provide support for venetoclax’s earlier use in the course of CLL, and may guide clinical practice and aid in the design of future clinical trials to address sequencing of novel agents,” Dr. Mato told attendees.

While prospective and real-world data clearly show that venetoclax is active in ibrutinib- or idelalisib-exposed patients, data are conversely “variable and limited” with regard to outcomes for next therapies following venetoclax.

“Current data addressing this key sequencing question, I feel, is a major limitation in supporting the sequence of venetoclax to a BTK inhibitor,” Dr. Mato said.

Accordingly, Dr. Mato and colleagues at 31 centers internationally planned and conducted this study, which included data on 326 patients treated with venetoclax who then discontinued for any reason.

“I wanted to highlight that 50% of the sites for this trial were recruited by a single tweet,” said Dr. Mato, adding that he and his coauthors received no funding to conduct this study and volunteered their time to complete it.

They found that, in BTK inhibitor–naive patients who discontinued venetoclax, subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment was associated with a high overall response rate and durable remissions, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 32 months.

In BTK inhibitor–exposed patients, response to postvenetoclax BTK inhibitor treatment depended on the reason for discontinuation, with a favorable result (PFS not reached with a mean follow-up of 7.7 months) in patients who were intolerant of the prior BTK inhibitor. By contrast, median PFS was only about 4 months for patients who were resistant to the prior BTK inhibitor.

PI3K inhibitors did not produce durable remissions after venetoclax, with a median PFS also of just 4 months, Dr. Mato reported.

However, cellular therapies appeared to be effective after venetoclax. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was particularly effective, with the median PFS not reached, while chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy produced a PFS of 9 months.

Dr. Mato emphasized that the results of the retrospective trial were “hypothesis generating” and noted that patients in the study had received a median of 3, and up to 11, prior therapies. “This population are probably not our patients receiving venetoclax in clinical practice. They’re more heavily pretreated.”

Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta Pharma, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 502.

ORLANDO – For a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who has discontinued venetoclax, choosing the best next therapy may depend on what novel agents the patient was exposed to and why they discontinued them, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, with the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

If the patient is Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor naive, then use of a BTK inhibitor after venetoclax would be supported, Dr. Mato said, by the high overall response rates and durable remissions that he and his coinvestigators documented in a retrospective, multicenter study designed specifically to address the gap in knowledge regarding what to use after venetoclax.

If the patient is BTK inhibitor exposed, then the reason for discontinuation needs to be considered before going with that venetoclax-to-BTK inhibitor sequence, Dr. Mato said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“In patients with resistance to a BTK inhibitor, the sequence was not supported – it did not appear to be effective,” he said. “However, in the setting of intolerance, an alternate BTK inhibitor could be considered.”

The study did not support a venetoclax-to-PI3K inhibitor sequence in PI3K-naive patients, he added, noting that remissions did not appear to be durable, suggesting a potential overlap in resistance mechanisms between agents.

All told, the most effective therapies for in the postvenetoclax setting included the use of a BTK inhibitor in BTK inhibitor–naive or previously responsive patients, and allogeneic transplant following double novel-agent exposure.

“These data may provide support for venetoclax’s earlier use in the course of CLL, and may guide clinical practice and aid in the design of future clinical trials to address sequencing of novel agents,” Dr. Mato told attendees.

While prospective and real-world data clearly show that venetoclax is active in ibrutinib- or idelalisib-exposed patients, data are conversely “variable and limited” with regard to outcomes for next therapies following venetoclax.

“Current data addressing this key sequencing question, I feel, is a major limitation in supporting the sequence of venetoclax to a BTK inhibitor,” Dr. Mato said.

Accordingly, Dr. Mato and colleagues at 31 centers internationally planned and conducted this study, which included data on 326 patients treated with venetoclax who then discontinued for any reason.

“I wanted to highlight that 50% of the sites for this trial were recruited by a single tweet,” said Dr. Mato, adding that he and his coauthors received no funding to conduct this study and volunteered their time to complete it.

They found that, in BTK inhibitor–naive patients who discontinued venetoclax, subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment was associated with a high overall response rate and durable remissions, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 32 months.

In BTK inhibitor–exposed patients, response to postvenetoclax BTK inhibitor treatment depended on the reason for discontinuation, with a favorable result (PFS not reached with a mean follow-up of 7.7 months) in patients who were intolerant of the prior BTK inhibitor. By contrast, median PFS was only about 4 months for patients who were resistant to the prior BTK inhibitor.

PI3K inhibitors did not produce durable remissions after venetoclax, with a median PFS also of just 4 months, Dr. Mato reported.

However, cellular therapies appeared to be effective after venetoclax. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was particularly effective, with the median PFS not reached, while chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy produced a PFS of 9 months.

Dr. Mato emphasized that the results of the retrospective trial were “hypothesis generating” and noted that patients in the study had received a median of 3, and up to 11, prior therapies. “This population are probably not our patients receiving venetoclax in clinical practice. They’re more heavily pretreated.”

Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta Pharma, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 502.

ORLANDO – For a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who has discontinued venetoclax, choosing the best next therapy may depend on what novel agents the patient was exposed to and why they discontinued them, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, with the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

If the patient is Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor naive, then use of a BTK inhibitor after venetoclax would be supported, Dr. Mato said, by the high overall response rates and durable remissions that he and his coinvestigators documented in a retrospective, multicenter study designed specifically to address the gap in knowledge regarding what to use after venetoclax.

If the patient is BTK inhibitor exposed, then the reason for discontinuation needs to be considered before going with that venetoclax-to-BTK inhibitor sequence, Dr. Mato said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“In patients with resistance to a BTK inhibitor, the sequence was not supported – it did not appear to be effective,” he said. “However, in the setting of intolerance, an alternate BTK inhibitor could be considered.”

The study did not support a venetoclax-to-PI3K inhibitor sequence in PI3K-naive patients, he added, noting that remissions did not appear to be durable, suggesting a potential overlap in resistance mechanisms between agents.

All told, the most effective therapies for in the postvenetoclax setting included the use of a BTK inhibitor in BTK inhibitor–naive or previously responsive patients, and allogeneic transplant following double novel-agent exposure.

“These data may provide support for venetoclax’s earlier use in the course of CLL, and may guide clinical practice and aid in the design of future clinical trials to address sequencing of novel agents,” Dr. Mato told attendees.

While prospective and real-world data clearly show that venetoclax is active in ibrutinib- or idelalisib-exposed patients, data are conversely “variable and limited” with regard to outcomes for next therapies following venetoclax.

“Current data addressing this key sequencing question, I feel, is a major limitation in supporting the sequence of venetoclax to a BTK inhibitor,” Dr. Mato said.

Accordingly, Dr. Mato and colleagues at 31 centers internationally planned and conducted this study, which included data on 326 patients treated with venetoclax who then discontinued for any reason.

“I wanted to highlight that 50% of the sites for this trial were recruited by a single tweet,” said Dr. Mato, adding that he and his coauthors received no funding to conduct this study and volunteered their time to complete it.

They found that, in BTK inhibitor–naive patients who discontinued venetoclax, subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment was associated with a high overall response rate and durable remissions, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 32 months.

In BTK inhibitor–exposed patients, response to postvenetoclax BTK inhibitor treatment depended on the reason for discontinuation, with a favorable result (PFS not reached with a mean follow-up of 7.7 months) in patients who were intolerant of the prior BTK inhibitor. By contrast, median PFS was only about 4 months for patients who were resistant to the prior BTK inhibitor.

PI3K inhibitors did not produce durable remissions after venetoclax, with a median PFS also of just 4 months, Dr. Mato reported.

However, cellular therapies appeared to be effective after venetoclax. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was particularly effective, with the median PFS not reached, while chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy produced a PFS of 9 months.

Dr. Mato emphasized that the results of the retrospective trial were “hypothesis generating” and noted that patients in the study had received a median of 3, and up to 11, prior therapies. “This population are probably not our patients receiving venetoclax in clinical practice. They’re more heavily pretreated.”

Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta Pharma, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 502.

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

bjancin@mdedge.com

ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.

They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.

Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.

The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.

All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.

As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.

The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.

“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.

Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.

The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.

“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.

“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.

“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.

­The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.

ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.

They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.

Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.

The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.

All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.

As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.

The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.

“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.

Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.

The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.

“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.

“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.

“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.

­The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.

ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.

They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.

Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.

The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.

All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.

As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.

The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.

“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.

Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.

The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.

“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.

“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.

“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.

­The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.

ORLANDO – Combining aspirin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or the prevention of stroke associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) without a clear indication was associated with increased bleeding risks in a large registry-based cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The study, which involved a cohort of 2,045 patients who were followed at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan during January 2009–June 2019, also found no apparent improvement in thrombosis incidence with the addition of aspirin, Jordan K. Schaefer, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the cohort patients, 639 adults who received a DOAC plus aspirin after VTE or for NVAF without a clear indication were compared with 639 propensity-matched controls. The bleeding event rate per 100 patient years was 39.50 vs. 32.32 at an average of 15.2 months of follow-up in the combination therapy and DOAC monotherapy groups, respectively, said Dr. Schaefer of the division of hematology/oncology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“This result was statistically significant for clinically relevant non-major bleeding, with an 18.7 rate per 100 patient years, compared with 13.5 for DOAC monotherapy,” (P = .02), he said. “We also saw a significant increase in non-major bleeding with combination therapy, compared with direct oral anticoagulant monotherapy” (rate, 32.82 vs. 25.88; P =.04).

No significant difference was seen overall (P =.07) or for other specific types of bleeding, he noted.

The observed rates of thrombosis in the groups, respectively, were 2.35 and 2.23 per 100 patient years (P =.95), he said, noting that patients on combination therapy also had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but those differences were not statistically significant.

“Direct-acting oral anticoagulants, which include apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, are increasingly used in clinical practice for indications that include the prevention of strokes for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease,” Dr. Schaefer said.

Aspirin is commonly used in clinical practice for various indications, including primary prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and colorectal cancer, as well as for thromboprophylaxis in patients with certain blood disorders or with certain cardiac devices, he added.

“Aspirin is used for the secondary prevention of thrombosis for patients with known coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or carotid artery disease,” he said. “And while adding aspirin to a DOAC is often appropriate after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, many patients receive the combination therapy without a clear indication, he said, noting that increasing evidence in recent years, largely from patients treated with warfarin and aspirin, suggest that the approach may do more harm than good for certain patients.

Specifically, there’s a question of whether aspirin is increasing the rates of bleeding without protecting patients from adverse thrombotic outcomes.

“This has specifically been a concern for patients who are on full-dose anticoagulation,” he said.

In the current study, patient demographics, comorbidities, and concurrent medications were well balanced in the treatment and control groups after propensity score matching, he said, noting that patients with a history of heart valve replacement, recent MI, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

“These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, but until such data [are] available, clinicians and patients should continue to balance the relative risks and benefits of adding aspirin to their direct oral anticoagulant therapy,” Dr. Schaefer said. “Further research needs to evaluate key subgroups to see if any particular population may benefit from combination therapy compared to DOAC therapy alone.”

Dr. Schaefer reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schaeffer J et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 787.

ORLANDO – Combining aspirin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or the prevention of stroke associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) without a clear indication was associated with increased bleeding risks in a large registry-based cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The study, which involved a cohort of 2,045 patients who were followed at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan during January 2009–June 2019, also found no apparent improvement in thrombosis incidence with the addition of aspirin, Jordan K. Schaefer, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the cohort patients, 639 adults who received a DOAC plus aspirin after VTE or for NVAF without a clear indication were compared with 639 propensity-matched controls. The bleeding event rate per 100 patient years was 39.50 vs. 32.32 at an average of 15.2 months of follow-up in the combination therapy and DOAC monotherapy groups, respectively, said Dr. Schaefer of the division of hematology/oncology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“This result was statistically significant for clinically relevant non-major bleeding, with an 18.7 rate per 100 patient years, compared with 13.5 for DOAC monotherapy,” (P = .02), he said. “We also saw a significant increase in non-major bleeding with combination therapy, compared with direct oral anticoagulant monotherapy” (rate, 32.82 vs. 25.88; P =.04).

No significant difference was seen overall (P =.07) or for other specific types of bleeding, he noted.

The observed rates of thrombosis in the groups, respectively, were 2.35 and 2.23 per 100 patient years (P =.95), he said, noting that patients on combination therapy also had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but those differences were not statistically significant.

“Direct-acting oral anticoagulants, which include apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, are increasingly used in clinical practice for indications that include the prevention of strokes for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease,” Dr. Schaefer said.

Aspirin is commonly used in clinical practice for various indications, including primary prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and colorectal cancer, as well as for thromboprophylaxis in patients with certain blood disorders or with certain cardiac devices, he added.

“Aspirin is used for the secondary prevention of thrombosis for patients with known coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or carotid artery disease,” he said. “And while adding aspirin to a DOAC is often appropriate after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, many patients receive the combination therapy without a clear indication, he said, noting that increasing evidence in recent years, largely from patients treated with warfarin and aspirin, suggest that the approach may do more harm than good for certain patients.

Specifically, there’s a question of whether aspirin is increasing the rates of bleeding without protecting patients from adverse thrombotic outcomes.

“This has specifically been a concern for patients who are on full-dose anticoagulation,” he said.

In the current study, patient demographics, comorbidities, and concurrent medications were well balanced in the treatment and control groups after propensity score matching, he said, noting that patients with a history of heart valve replacement, recent MI, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

“These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, but until such data [are] available, clinicians and patients should continue to balance the relative risks and benefits of adding aspirin to their direct oral anticoagulant therapy,” Dr. Schaefer said. “Further research needs to evaluate key subgroups to see if any particular population may benefit from combination therapy compared to DOAC therapy alone.”

Dr. Schaefer reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schaeffer J et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 787.

ORLANDO – Combining aspirin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or the prevention of stroke associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) without a clear indication was associated with increased bleeding risks in a large registry-based cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The study, which involved a cohort of 2,045 patients who were followed at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan during January 2009–June 2019, also found no apparent improvement in thrombosis incidence with the addition of aspirin, Jordan K. Schaefer, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the cohort patients, 639 adults who received a DOAC plus aspirin after VTE or for NVAF without a clear indication were compared with 639 propensity-matched controls. The bleeding event rate per 100 patient years was 39.50 vs. 32.32 at an average of 15.2 months of follow-up in the combination therapy and DOAC monotherapy groups, respectively, said Dr. Schaefer of the division of hematology/oncology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“This result was statistically significant for clinically relevant non-major bleeding, with an 18.7 rate per 100 patient years, compared with 13.5 for DOAC monotherapy,” (P = .02), he said. “We also saw a significant increase in non-major bleeding with combination therapy, compared with direct oral anticoagulant monotherapy” (rate, 32.82 vs. 25.88; P =.04).

No significant difference was seen overall (P =.07) or for other specific types of bleeding, he noted.

The observed rates of thrombosis in the groups, respectively, were 2.35 and 2.23 per 100 patient years (P =.95), he said, noting that patients on combination therapy also had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but those differences were not statistically significant.

“Direct-acting oral anticoagulants, which include apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, are increasingly used in clinical practice for indications that include the prevention of strokes for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease,” Dr. Schaefer said.

Aspirin is commonly used in clinical practice for various indications, including primary prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and colorectal cancer, as well as for thromboprophylaxis in patients with certain blood disorders or with certain cardiac devices, he added.

“Aspirin is used for the secondary prevention of thrombosis for patients with known coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or carotid artery disease,” he said. “And while adding aspirin to a DOAC is often appropriate after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, many patients receive the combination therapy without a clear indication, he said, noting that increasing evidence in recent years, largely from patients treated with warfarin and aspirin, suggest that the approach may do more harm than good for certain patients.

Specifically, there’s a question of whether aspirin is increasing the rates of bleeding without protecting patients from adverse thrombotic outcomes.

“This has specifically been a concern for patients who are on full-dose anticoagulation,” he said.

In the current study, patient demographics, comorbidities, and concurrent medications were well balanced in the treatment and control groups after propensity score matching, he said, noting that patients with a history of heart valve replacement, recent MI, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

“These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, but until such data [are] available, clinicians and patients should continue to balance the relative risks and benefits of adding aspirin to their direct oral anticoagulant therapy,” Dr. Schaefer said. “Further research needs to evaluate key subgroups to see if any particular population may benefit from combination therapy compared to DOAC therapy alone.”

Dr. Schaefer reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schaeffer J et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 787.

ORLANDO – A dual-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has demonstrated a high overall response rate, a long response duration, and manageable safety in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to an investigator in a phase 1 study.

Benjamin Pena/Medscape

The overall response rate exceeded 90%, and about three-quarters of patients remained progression-free at 9 months after treatment with the CAR T-cell therapy, which targets both B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD38, the study investigator reported.

Grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in about one-quarter of the patients, and no neurotoxicity was observed, according to investigator Yu Hu, MD, of Tongji Medical College in Hubei, China.

“These initial data provide strong evidence to support the further development of a dual-targeted CAR T-cell therapy for hard to treat multiple myeloma,” Dr. Hu said in a press conference.

Short-term relapse has been a “major challenge” with current CAR T-cell therapies currently under investigation for myeloma, most of which target BCMA, according to Dr. Hu.

He said the bispecific CAR T-cell therapy under investigation, known as BM38, was designed to target antigen loss and increase persistence of effector cells. According to the investigator, this was the first study to focus on an anti-BCMA and CD38 dual-targeted CAR T-cell therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Gary J. Schiller, MD, of UCLA Health, who moderated the press conference, said that while dual-targeting is a potentially “attractive” approach in these hard-to-treat patients, further follow-up is needed to see duration of response and to see if antigen escape re-emerges.

“Cellular therapy is costly, in terms of toxicity as well as financial costs, so you would like to see what the durability of responses is before engaging in that as a late-stage therapy, not to mention moving it up front,” Dr. Schiller said in an interview.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) duration had not been reached at the time of this report, though the 9-month PFS rate was 78.87%, according to the data presented by Dr. Hu.

SOURCE: Li C et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 930.

ORLANDO – A dual-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has demonstrated a high overall response rate, a long response duration, and manageable safety in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to an investigator in a phase 1 study.

Benjamin Pena/Medscape

The overall response rate exceeded 90%, and about three-quarters of patients remained progression-free at 9 months after treatment with the CAR T-cell therapy, which targets both B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD38, the study investigator reported.

Grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in about one-quarter of the patients, and no neurotoxicity was observed, according to investigator Yu Hu, MD, of Tongji Medical College in Hubei, China.

“These initial data provide strong evidence to support the further development of a dual-targeted CAR T-cell therapy for hard to treat multiple myeloma,” Dr. Hu said in a press conference.

Short-term relapse has been a “major challenge” with current CAR T-cell therapies currently under investigation for myeloma, most of which target BCMA, according to Dr. Hu.

He said the bispecific CAR T-cell therapy under investigation, known as BM38, was designed to target antigen loss and increase persistence of effector cells. According to the investigator, this was the first study to focus on an anti-BCMA and CD38 dual-targeted CAR T-cell therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Gary J. Schiller, MD, of UCLA Health, who moderated the press conference, said that while dual-targeting is a potentially “attractive” approach in these hard-to-treat patients, further follow-up is needed to see duration of response and to see if antigen escape re-emerges.

“Cellular therapy is costly, in terms of toxicity as well as financial costs, so you would like to see what the durability of responses is before engaging in that as a late-stage therapy, not to mention moving it up front,” Dr. Schiller said in an interview.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) duration had not been reached at the time of this report, though the 9-month PFS rate was 78.87%, according to the data presented by Dr. Hu.

SOURCE: Li C et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 930.

ORLANDO – A dual-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has demonstrated a high overall response rate, a long response duration, and manageable safety in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to an investigator in a phase 1 study.

Benjamin Pena/Medscape

The overall response rate exceeded 90%, and about three-quarters of patients remained progression-free at 9 months after treatment with the CAR T-cell therapy, which targets both B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD38, the study investigator reported.

Grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in about one-quarter of the patients, and no neurotoxicity was observed, according to investigator Yu Hu, MD, of Tongji Medical College in Hubei, China.

“These initial data provide strong evidence to support the further development of a dual-targeted CAR T-cell therapy for hard to treat multiple myeloma,” Dr. Hu said in a press conference.

Short-term relapse has been a “major challenge” with current CAR T-cell therapies currently under investigation for myeloma, most of which target BCMA, according to Dr. Hu.

He said the bispecific CAR T-cell therapy under investigation, known as BM38, was designed to target antigen loss and increase persistence of effector cells. According to the investigator, this was the first study to focus on an anti-BCMA and CD38 dual-targeted CAR T-cell therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Gary J. Schiller, MD, of UCLA Health, who moderated the press conference, said that while dual-targeting is a potentially “attractive” approach in these hard-to-treat patients, further follow-up is needed to see duration of response and to see if antigen escape re-emerges.

“Cellular therapy is costly, in terms of toxicity as well as financial costs, so you would like to see what the durability of responses is before engaging in that as a late-stage therapy, not to mention moving it up front,” Dr. Schiller said in an interview.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) duration had not been reached at the time of this report, though the 9-month PFS rate was 78.87%, according to the data presented by Dr. Hu.

SOURCE: Li C et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 930.

ORLANDO – A novel chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell construct is associated with deep clinical responses in patients with multiple myeloma for whom prior lines of therapy – some numbering in the double digits – have failed.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Among 29 patients with multiple myeloma enrolled in a phase 1b/2 trial of JNJ-4528, the overall response rate (ORR) at 6 months median follow-up was 100%, including 69% complete responses, with 27 patients remaining free of disease progression at a median of 6 months, reported Deepu Madduri, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Benjamin Pena/Medscape

“These are very heavily pretreated patients, and so getting early and deep responses is quite amazing,” she said at a briefing prior to presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

JNJ-4528 is a second-generation CAR T containing two single-domain antibodies targeted against B-cell maturation protein (BCMA). As previously reported, an identical CAR T cell construct showed a high overall response with manageable toxicities in 74 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. JNJ-4528 was granted a breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma by the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 6, 2019, and a priority medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency in April 2019.

BCMA was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells. Several research groups are currently investigating CAR T cells or monoclonal antibodies targeted to BCMA. The product closest to receiving FDA approval is likely BB2121.

SOURCE: Madduri D et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 577.

ORLANDO – A novel chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell construct is associated with deep clinical responses in patients with multiple myeloma for whom prior lines of therapy – some numbering in the double digits – have failed.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Among 29 patients with multiple myeloma enrolled in a phase 1b/2 trial of JNJ-4528, the overall response rate (ORR) at 6 months median follow-up was 100%, including 69% complete responses, with 27 patients remaining free of disease progression at a median of 6 months, reported Deepu Madduri, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Benjamin Pena/Medscape

“These are very heavily pretreated patients, and so getting early and deep responses is quite amazing,” she said at a briefing prior to presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

JNJ-4528 is a second-generation CAR T containing two single-domain antibodies targeted against B-cell maturation protein (BCMA). As previously reported, an identical CAR T cell construct showed a high overall response with manageable toxicities in 74 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. JNJ-4528 was granted a breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma by the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 6, 2019, and a priority medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency in April 2019.

BCMA was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells. Several research groups are currently investigating CAR T cells or monoclonal antibodies targeted to BCMA. The product closest to receiving FDA approval is likely BB2121.

SOURCE: Madduri D et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 577.

ORLANDO – A novel chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell construct is associated with deep clinical responses in patients with multiple myeloma for whom prior lines of therapy – some numbering in the double digits – have failed.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Among 29 patients with multiple myeloma enrolled in a phase 1b/2 trial of JNJ-4528, the overall response rate (ORR) at 6 months median follow-up was 100%, including 69% complete responses, with 27 patients remaining free of disease progression at a median of 6 months, reported Deepu Madduri, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Benjamin Pena/Medscape

“These are very heavily pretreated patients, and so getting early and deep responses is quite amazing,” she said at a briefing prior to presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

JNJ-4528 is a second-generation CAR T containing two single-domain antibodies targeted against B-cell maturation protein (BCMA). As previously reported, an identical CAR T cell construct showed a high overall response with manageable toxicities in 74 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. JNJ-4528 was granted a breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma by the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 6, 2019, and a priority medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency in April 2019.

BCMA was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells. Several research groups are currently investigating CAR T cells or monoclonal antibodies targeted to BCMA. The product closest to receiving FDA approval is likely BB2121.

SOURCE: Madduri D et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 577.