User login
Ketamine linked to reduced suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety
, new research suggests.
Results from a retrospective chart review analysis, which included more than 400 participants with TRD, illustrate that ketamine is a safe and rapid treatment in a real-world patient population, lead author Patrick A. Oliver, MD, founder and medical director, MindPeace Clinics, Richmond, Va., told this news organization.
The effect was perhaps most notable for reducing suicidal ideation, he said.
“In 2 weeks, we can take somebody from being suicidal to nonsuicidal. It’s a total game changer,” Dr. Oliver added.
Every year in the United States, about 12 million individuals think about suicide, 3.2 million make a plan to kill themselves, and more than 46,000 succeed, the investigators note.
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Molecule mixture
Primarily used as an anesthetic in hospitals, ketamine is also taken illegally as a recreational drug. Users may aim for an intense high or feeling of dissociation, or an out-of-body–type experience.
Ketamine is a mixture of two mirror-image molecules. An intranasal version of one of these molecules (esketamine) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD. Both esketamine and ketamine are believed to increase neurotrophic signaling that affects synaptic function.
The study included 424 patients (mean age, 41.7 years) with major depressive disorder or another mood disorder and who received at least one ketamine infusion at a specialty clinic. Most participants had failed prior medication trials.
Patients in the study were typically started on 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine, with the dose titrated to achieve symptoms of partial dissociation. The median dose administered after titration was 0.93 mg/kg over 40 minutes.
The main treatment course of at least six infusions within 21 days was completed by 70% of the patients.
At each clinic visit, all participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7).
The primary outcome was PHQ-9 total scores, for which researchers looked at seven time periods: 1 week, 2-3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, 13-24 weeks, 25-51 weeks, and 52+ weeks.
‘Blows it out of the water’
Results showed PHQ-9 total scores declined by 50% throughout the course of treatment, with much of the improvement gained within 4-6 weeks. There was a significant difference between week 1 and all later time periods (all P values < .001) and between weeks 2 and 3 and all later periods (all P values < .001).
Other measures included treatment response, defined as at least a 50% improvement on the PHQ-9, and depression remission, defined as a PHQ-9 score of less than 5. After three infusions, 14% of the patients responded and 7% were in remission. After 10 infusions, 72% responded and 38% were in remission.
These results compare favorably to other depression treatments, said Dr. Oliver. “Truthfully, with the exception of ECT [electroconvulsive therapy], this blows it all out of the water,” he added.
Dr. Oliver noted that the success rate for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is 40%-60% depending on the modality; and for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the success rate “is somewhere between the mid-20s and low-30s percent range.”
Another outcome measure was the self-harm/suicidal ideation item of the PHQ-9 questionnaire, which asks about “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way.” About 22% of the study participants no longer reported suicidal ideation after 3 infusions, 50% by 6 infusions, and 75% by 10 infusions.
By 15 infusions, 85% no longer reported these thoughts. “Nothing else has shown that, ever,” said Dr. Oliver.
Symptoms of generalized anxiety were also substantially improved. There was about a 30% reduction in the GAD-7 score during treatment and, again, most of the response occurred by 4-6 weeks.
Study limitations
Sex, age, and other demographic characteristics did not predict response or remission, but suicide planning trended toward higher response rates (P = .083). This suggests that a more depressed subgroup can achieve greater benefit from the treatment than can less symptomatic patients, the investigators note.
A history of psychosis also trended toward better response to treatment (P = .086) but not remission.
The researchers note that study limitations include that it was retrospective, lacked a control group, and did not require patients to be hospitalized – so the study sample may have been less severely ill than in other studies.
In addition, most patients paid out of pocket for the treatment at $495 per infusion, and they self-reported their symptoms.
As well, the researchers did not assess adverse events, although nurses made follow-up calls to patients. Dr. Oliver noted the most common side effects of ketamine are nausea, vomiting, and anxiety.
Previous research has suggested that ketamine therapy is not linked to long-term side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, weight gain, lethargy, or cognitive issues, said Dr. Oliver.
The investigators point out another study limitation was lack of detailed demographic information, such as race, income, and education, which might affect its generalizability.
Concerns and questions
Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD, senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, noted several concerns, including that the clinics treating the study participants with ketamine profited from it.
He also speculated about who can afford the treatment because only a few patients in the study were reimbursed through insurance.
Dr. Movahed Rad was not involved with the current research but was principal investigator for a recent study that compared intravenous ketamine to ECT.
He questioned whether the patient population in the new study really was “real world.” Well-designed randomized controlled trials have been carried out in a “naturalistic setting, [which] get closer to real-life patients,” he said.
He also noted that the median dose after clinician titration (0.93 mg/kg over 40 minutes) “may be considered very high.”
With regard to doses being titrated to achieve symptoms of partial dissociation, “there is no obvious evidence to my knowledge that patients need to develop dissociative symptoms in order to have antidepressant effect,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.
Finally, he noted that the finding that 28% of the participants were using illegal drugs “is worrying” and wondered what drugs they were taking; he also questioned why 81% of the study population needed to take antidepressants.
The study did not receive outside funding. Dr. Oliver is the founder of MindPeace Clinics, which specialize in ketamine therapeutics. Dr. Movahed Rad has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Results from a retrospective chart review analysis, which included more than 400 participants with TRD, illustrate that ketamine is a safe and rapid treatment in a real-world patient population, lead author Patrick A. Oliver, MD, founder and medical director, MindPeace Clinics, Richmond, Va., told this news organization.
The effect was perhaps most notable for reducing suicidal ideation, he said.
“In 2 weeks, we can take somebody from being suicidal to nonsuicidal. It’s a total game changer,” Dr. Oliver added.
Every year in the United States, about 12 million individuals think about suicide, 3.2 million make a plan to kill themselves, and more than 46,000 succeed, the investigators note.
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Molecule mixture
Primarily used as an anesthetic in hospitals, ketamine is also taken illegally as a recreational drug. Users may aim for an intense high or feeling of dissociation, or an out-of-body–type experience.
Ketamine is a mixture of two mirror-image molecules. An intranasal version of one of these molecules (esketamine) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD. Both esketamine and ketamine are believed to increase neurotrophic signaling that affects synaptic function.
The study included 424 patients (mean age, 41.7 years) with major depressive disorder or another mood disorder and who received at least one ketamine infusion at a specialty clinic. Most participants had failed prior medication trials.
Patients in the study were typically started on 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine, with the dose titrated to achieve symptoms of partial dissociation. The median dose administered after titration was 0.93 mg/kg over 40 minutes.
The main treatment course of at least six infusions within 21 days was completed by 70% of the patients.
At each clinic visit, all participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7).
The primary outcome was PHQ-9 total scores, for which researchers looked at seven time periods: 1 week, 2-3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, 13-24 weeks, 25-51 weeks, and 52+ weeks.
‘Blows it out of the water’
Results showed PHQ-9 total scores declined by 50% throughout the course of treatment, with much of the improvement gained within 4-6 weeks. There was a significant difference between week 1 and all later time periods (all P values < .001) and between weeks 2 and 3 and all later periods (all P values < .001).
Other measures included treatment response, defined as at least a 50% improvement on the PHQ-9, and depression remission, defined as a PHQ-9 score of less than 5. After three infusions, 14% of the patients responded and 7% were in remission. After 10 infusions, 72% responded and 38% were in remission.
These results compare favorably to other depression treatments, said Dr. Oliver. “Truthfully, with the exception of ECT [electroconvulsive therapy], this blows it all out of the water,” he added.
Dr. Oliver noted that the success rate for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is 40%-60% depending on the modality; and for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the success rate “is somewhere between the mid-20s and low-30s percent range.”
Another outcome measure was the self-harm/suicidal ideation item of the PHQ-9 questionnaire, which asks about “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way.” About 22% of the study participants no longer reported suicidal ideation after 3 infusions, 50% by 6 infusions, and 75% by 10 infusions.
By 15 infusions, 85% no longer reported these thoughts. “Nothing else has shown that, ever,” said Dr. Oliver.
Symptoms of generalized anxiety were also substantially improved. There was about a 30% reduction in the GAD-7 score during treatment and, again, most of the response occurred by 4-6 weeks.
Study limitations
Sex, age, and other demographic characteristics did not predict response or remission, but suicide planning trended toward higher response rates (P = .083). This suggests that a more depressed subgroup can achieve greater benefit from the treatment than can less symptomatic patients, the investigators note.
A history of psychosis also trended toward better response to treatment (P = .086) but not remission.
The researchers note that study limitations include that it was retrospective, lacked a control group, and did not require patients to be hospitalized – so the study sample may have been less severely ill than in other studies.
In addition, most patients paid out of pocket for the treatment at $495 per infusion, and they self-reported their symptoms.
As well, the researchers did not assess adverse events, although nurses made follow-up calls to patients. Dr. Oliver noted the most common side effects of ketamine are nausea, vomiting, and anxiety.
Previous research has suggested that ketamine therapy is not linked to long-term side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, weight gain, lethargy, or cognitive issues, said Dr. Oliver.
The investigators point out another study limitation was lack of detailed demographic information, such as race, income, and education, which might affect its generalizability.
Concerns and questions
Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD, senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, noted several concerns, including that the clinics treating the study participants with ketamine profited from it.
He also speculated about who can afford the treatment because only a few patients in the study were reimbursed through insurance.
Dr. Movahed Rad was not involved with the current research but was principal investigator for a recent study that compared intravenous ketamine to ECT.
He questioned whether the patient population in the new study really was “real world.” Well-designed randomized controlled trials have been carried out in a “naturalistic setting, [which] get closer to real-life patients,” he said.
He also noted that the median dose after clinician titration (0.93 mg/kg over 40 minutes) “may be considered very high.”
With regard to doses being titrated to achieve symptoms of partial dissociation, “there is no obvious evidence to my knowledge that patients need to develop dissociative symptoms in order to have antidepressant effect,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.
Finally, he noted that the finding that 28% of the participants were using illegal drugs “is worrying” and wondered what drugs they were taking; he also questioned why 81% of the study population needed to take antidepressants.
The study did not receive outside funding. Dr. Oliver is the founder of MindPeace Clinics, which specialize in ketamine therapeutics. Dr. Movahed Rad has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Results from a retrospective chart review analysis, which included more than 400 participants with TRD, illustrate that ketamine is a safe and rapid treatment in a real-world patient population, lead author Patrick A. Oliver, MD, founder and medical director, MindPeace Clinics, Richmond, Va., told this news organization.
The effect was perhaps most notable for reducing suicidal ideation, he said.
“In 2 weeks, we can take somebody from being suicidal to nonsuicidal. It’s a total game changer,” Dr. Oliver added.
Every year in the United States, about 12 million individuals think about suicide, 3.2 million make a plan to kill themselves, and more than 46,000 succeed, the investigators note.
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Molecule mixture
Primarily used as an anesthetic in hospitals, ketamine is also taken illegally as a recreational drug. Users may aim for an intense high or feeling of dissociation, or an out-of-body–type experience.
Ketamine is a mixture of two mirror-image molecules. An intranasal version of one of these molecules (esketamine) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD. Both esketamine and ketamine are believed to increase neurotrophic signaling that affects synaptic function.
The study included 424 patients (mean age, 41.7 years) with major depressive disorder or another mood disorder and who received at least one ketamine infusion at a specialty clinic. Most participants had failed prior medication trials.
Patients in the study were typically started on 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine, with the dose titrated to achieve symptoms of partial dissociation. The median dose administered after titration was 0.93 mg/kg over 40 minutes.
The main treatment course of at least six infusions within 21 days was completed by 70% of the patients.
At each clinic visit, all participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7).
The primary outcome was PHQ-9 total scores, for which researchers looked at seven time periods: 1 week, 2-3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, 13-24 weeks, 25-51 weeks, and 52+ weeks.
‘Blows it out of the water’
Results showed PHQ-9 total scores declined by 50% throughout the course of treatment, with much of the improvement gained within 4-6 weeks. There was a significant difference between week 1 and all later time periods (all P values < .001) and between weeks 2 and 3 and all later periods (all P values < .001).
Other measures included treatment response, defined as at least a 50% improvement on the PHQ-9, and depression remission, defined as a PHQ-9 score of less than 5. After three infusions, 14% of the patients responded and 7% were in remission. After 10 infusions, 72% responded and 38% were in remission.
These results compare favorably to other depression treatments, said Dr. Oliver. “Truthfully, with the exception of ECT [electroconvulsive therapy], this blows it all out of the water,” he added.
Dr. Oliver noted that the success rate for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is 40%-60% depending on the modality; and for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the success rate “is somewhere between the mid-20s and low-30s percent range.”
Another outcome measure was the self-harm/suicidal ideation item of the PHQ-9 questionnaire, which asks about “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way.” About 22% of the study participants no longer reported suicidal ideation after 3 infusions, 50% by 6 infusions, and 75% by 10 infusions.
By 15 infusions, 85% no longer reported these thoughts. “Nothing else has shown that, ever,” said Dr. Oliver.
Symptoms of generalized anxiety were also substantially improved. There was about a 30% reduction in the GAD-7 score during treatment and, again, most of the response occurred by 4-6 weeks.
Study limitations
Sex, age, and other demographic characteristics did not predict response or remission, but suicide planning trended toward higher response rates (P = .083). This suggests that a more depressed subgroup can achieve greater benefit from the treatment than can less symptomatic patients, the investigators note.
A history of psychosis also trended toward better response to treatment (P = .086) but not remission.
The researchers note that study limitations include that it was retrospective, lacked a control group, and did not require patients to be hospitalized – so the study sample may have been less severely ill than in other studies.
In addition, most patients paid out of pocket for the treatment at $495 per infusion, and they self-reported their symptoms.
As well, the researchers did not assess adverse events, although nurses made follow-up calls to patients. Dr. Oliver noted the most common side effects of ketamine are nausea, vomiting, and anxiety.
Previous research has suggested that ketamine therapy is not linked to long-term side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, weight gain, lethargy, or cognitive issues, said Dr. Oliver.
The investigators point out another study limitation was lack of detailed demographic information, such as race, income, and education, which might affect its generalizability.
Concerns and questions
Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD, senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, noted several concerns, including that the clinics treating the study participants with ketamine profited from it.
He also speculated about who can afford the treatment because only a few patients in the study were reimbursed through insurance.
Dr. Movahed Rad was not involved with the current research but was principal investigator for a recent study that compared intravenous ketamine to ECT.
He questioned whether the patient population in the new study really was “real world.” Well-designed randomized controlled trials have been carried out in a “naturalistic setting, [which] get closer to real-life patients,” he said.
He also noted that the median dose after clinician titration (0.93 mg/kg over 40 minutes) “may be considered very high.”
With regard to doses being titrated to achieve symptoms of partial dissociation, “there is no obvious evidence to my knowledge that patients need to develop dissociative symptoms in order to have antidepressant effect,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.
Finally, he noted that the finding that 28% of the participants were using illegal drugs “is worrying” and wondered what drugs they were taking; he also questioned why 81% of the study population needed to take antidepressants.
The study did not receive outside funding. Dr. Oliver is the founder of MindPeace Clinics, which specialize in ketamine therapeutics. Dr. Movahed Rad has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
Is acetaminophen really safer than NSAIDs in heart disease?
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM HYPERTENSION 2022
‘Game changer’ semaglutide halves diabetes risk from obesity
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adderall shortage reported by pharmacies, patients
Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.
“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.
Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.
Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.
That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.
“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.
Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.
NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.
“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.
Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.
Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.
That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.
“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.
Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.
NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.
“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.
Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.
Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.
That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.
“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.
Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.
NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Atezolizumab doubles survival of NSCLC patients with poor performance status
PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.
Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.
This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.
The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.
“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.
, those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS scores of 2 or greater, or who have substantial comorbidities that preclude their ability to receive platinum doublet or single platinum agent chemotherapy, he said.
Invited discussant Natasha Leighl, MD, MMSc, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, called the study “really extraordinary. This study enrolls patients that historically are excluded or underrepresented in trials, and yet really represent the majority of patients that we diagnose and treat around the world.”
Excluded from clinical trials
“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.
First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.
“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
Study details
To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.
Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).
As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.
The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.
A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.
The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
Age is not prognostic
“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.
“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.
She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”
It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.
The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.
PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.
Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.
This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.
The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.
“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.
, those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS scores of 2 or greater, or who have substantial comorbidities that preclude their ability to receive platinum doublet or single platinum agent chemotherapy, he said.
Invited discussant Natasha Leighl, MD, MMSc, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, called the study “really extraordinary. This study enrolls patients that historically are excluded or underrepresented in trials, and yet really represent the majority of patients that we diagnose and treat around the world.”
Excluded from clinical trials
“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.
First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.
“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
Study details
To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.
Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).
As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.
The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.
A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.
The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
Age is not prognostic
“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.
“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.
She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”
It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.
The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.
PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.
Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.
This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.
The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.
“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.
, those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS scores of 2 or greater, or who have substantial comorbidities that preclude their ability to receive platinum doublet or single platinum agent chemotherapy, he said.
Invited discussant Natasha Leighl, MD, MMSc, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, called the study “really extraordinary. This study enrolls patients that historically are excluded or underrepresented in trials, and yet really represent the majority of patients that we diagnose and treat around the world.”
Excluded from clinical trials
“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.
First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.
“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
Study details
To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.
Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).
As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.
The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.
A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.
The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
Age is not prognostic
“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.
“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.
She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”
It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.
The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.
AT ESMO CONGRESS 2022
Brodalumab suicide risk similar to other biologics, postmarket study finds
.
The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.
Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”
The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.
The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.
For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.
“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.
Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.
(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.
“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”
Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”
The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.
Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.
The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.
The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).
Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .
Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.
In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.
The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.
Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.
.
The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.
Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”
The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.
The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.
For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.
“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.
Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.
(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.
“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”
Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”
The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.
Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.
The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.
The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).
Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .
Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.
In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.
The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.
Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.
.
The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.
Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”
The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.
The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.
For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.
“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.
Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.
(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.
“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”
Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”
The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.
Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.
The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.
The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).
Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .
Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.
In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.
The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.
Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.
A farewell to arms? Drug approvals based on single-arm trials can be flawed
PARIS – with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.
In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.
In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
Why do single-arm trials?
The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:
- A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
- The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
- The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
- The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.
Survival endpoints won’t do
Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.
He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.
It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.
“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.
In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
On second thought ...
Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.
Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
What’s rare and safe?
The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.
He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
Cherry-picking patients
Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.
“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.
“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.
Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.
Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.
PARIS – with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.
In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.
In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
Why do single-arm trials?
The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:
- A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
- The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
- The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
- The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.
Survival endpoints won’t do
Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.
He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.
It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.
“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.
In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
On second thought ...
Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.
Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
What’s rare and safe?
The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.
He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
Cherry-picking patients
Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.
“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.
“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.
Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.
Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.
PARIS – with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.
In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.
In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
Why do single-arm trials?
The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:
- A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
- The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
- The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
- The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.
Survival endpoints won’t do
Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.
He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.
It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.
“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.
In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
On second thought ...
Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.
Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
What’s rare and safe?
The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.
He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
Cherry-picking patients
Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.
“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.
“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.
Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.
Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.
AT ESMO CONGRESS 2022
BRAF/MEK combo shows long-term efficacy in melanoma
, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.
The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).
There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.
Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy
Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.
To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.
Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.
The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.
The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.
Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.
, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.
The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).
There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.
Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy
Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.
To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.
Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.
The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.
The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.
Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.
, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.
The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).
There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.
Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy
Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.
To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.
Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.
The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.
The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.
Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Sustained response at 2 years reported for newly approved oral psoriasis agent
MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.
,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.
The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.
When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).
There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.
The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.
In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.
In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.
Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.
In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.
The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.
“Patients now have a choice,” he said.
Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.
“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.
Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.
MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.
,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.
The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.
When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).
There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.
The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.
In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.
In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.
Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.
In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.
The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.
“Patients now have a choice,” he said.
Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.
“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.
Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.
MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.
,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.
The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.
When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).
There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.
The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.
In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.
In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.
Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.
In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.
The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.
“Patients now have a choice,” he said.
Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.
“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.
Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Pembro/chemo combo fails to improve event-free survival in head and neck cancer
PARIS – compared with CRT plus placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC), reported investigators of the KEYNOTE-412 trial.
Among 804 patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven, unresected locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas who were followed for a median of 47.7 months, the event-free survival (EFS) rate with the pembrolizumab/CRT combination followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was 63.2%, compared with 56.2% for CRT plus placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.83, said Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Despite the trial failing to meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Machiels expressed optimism about the results.
“Pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was associated with a favorable trend toward improved event-free survival versus placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer,” he said.
He noted that the 2-year EFS rate was 63% with pembrolizumab, compared with 56% with placebo.
The data also support the hypothesis that programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as measured by a combined positive score (CPS) could be a predictive biomarker for identifying those patients most likely to respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor, he added.
KEYNOTE-412 details
The rationale for combining the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy comes from the KEYNOTE-048 trial results of which showed a survival improvement for the use of pembrolizumab plus a platinum-containing regimen as a first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater.
In the current study, Dr. Machiels and colleagues studied whether adding pembrolizumab to CRT could benefit patients with treatment-naive unresected, locally advanced HNSCC.
Eligible patients included those with stage T3 or T4, N0-N3 or any N2a-3 (T1-T4) cancers of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oral cavity, and either p16-negative oropharynx cancers or T4 or N3 p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Patients were required to be eligible for high-dose cisplatin-based CRT.
A total of 804 patients were randomized, 402 in each arm, to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus CRT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab for 14 cycles, or to placebo plus CRT followed by placebo maintenance.
As noted before, there was no significant difference between the study arms for the primary endpoint of EFS. The 24-month EFS rate was 63.2% for the pembrolizumab group, compared with 56.2% for controls. The respective 6-month EFS rates were 57.4% versus 52.1%.
In a post hoc analysis, both EFS and overall survival were numerically with pembrolizumab among patients with PD-L1 CPS of 20 or greater. The respective 2- and 3-year EFS rates were 71.2% versus 62.6%, and 66.7% versus 57.2%.
The 24-months overall survival rates were 83.3% with pembrolizumab and 79.9% with placebo, and 36-month rates were 79.1% and 73%, respectively.
Neither EFS rates nor OS rates among patients in this subgroup differed significantly; however, there were no new safety signals with the combination, Dr. Machiels said. The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 92.2% in the pembrolizumab arm versus 88.4% in the placebo arm. Four patients in the pembrolizumab arm and six in the control arm died from treatment-related causes.
Benefit still to be proven
In a media briefing held prior to his presentation, Dr. Machiels was asked how he could justify his conclusions about a benefit for adding pembrolizumab given that there was no difference between the treatment groups for the primary endpoint.
He said that when the investigators designed the trial 7 years ago, the CPS score for PD-L1 expression had not yet been developed, and that if it had been they might have designed the trial to explore the effect of the pembrolizumab chemoradiation combination according to CPS subgroups.
He also pointed to the numerically superior 2-year EFS and overall rates.
In the presidential symposium, James Larkin, MD, PhD, an invited discussant from the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, said that chemotherapy and anti–PD-1 therapies are known to offer benefit in advanced cancers despite the trial’s failure.
“There is a signal, particularly as we’ve seen in the high PD-L1 group,” he said, noting that the signal was consistent with that seen in the JAVELIN 100 study, which was also a negative trial. He cautioned against relying too heavily on the comparison, however, as JAVELIN 100 was conducted with avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, whereas pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor.
“Could there be an issue here with treatment schedule? An example and a comparison might be the PACIFIC study in non–small cell lung cancer, which is a positive trial, where actually the checkpoint inhibit with durvalumab was given immediately after the chemoradiotherapy, leading to benefit, rather than being concurrent,” he said.
Dr. Larkin also questioned whether, as codiscussant Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, suggested radiotherapy to lymph nodes might alter the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors.
“Clearly radiotherapy is the central component of treatment in this setting, so it would be quite difficult to scale too much on that, but the question is: ‘Could it be modified?’ For example, just to irradiate the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes and potentially spare noninvolved lymph nodes,” he said.
The KEYNOTE-412 study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Machiels reported uncompensated consulting to the company. Dr. Larkin reported consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck and others. Dr. Loi reported uncompensated advisory board activity for Merck and others.
PARIS – compared with CRT plus placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC), reported investigators of the KEYNOTE-412 trial.
Among 804 patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven, unresected locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas who were followed for a median of 47.7 months, the event-free survival (EFS) rate with the pembrolizumab/CRT combination followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was 63.2%, compared with 56.2% for CRT plus placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.83, said Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Despite the trial failing to meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Machiels expressed optimism about the results.
“Pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was associated with a favorable trend toward improved event-free survival versus placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer,” he said.
He noted that the 2-year EFS rate was 63% with pembrolizumab, compared with 56% with placebo.
The data also support the hypothesis that programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as measured by a combined positive score (CPS) could be a predictive biomarker for identifying those patients most likely to respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor, he added.
KEYNOTE-412 details
The rationale for combining the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy comes from the KEYNOTE-048 trial results of which showed a survival improvement for the use of pembrolizumab plus a platinum-containing regimen as a first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater.
In the current study, Dr. Machiels and colleagues studied whether adding pembrolizumab to CRT could benefit patients with treatment-naive unresected, locally advanced HNSCC.
Eligible patients included those with stage T3 or T4, N0-N3 or any N2a-3 (T1-T4) cancers of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oral cavity, and either p16-negative oropharynx cancers or T4 or N3 p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Patients were required to be eligible for high-dose cisplatin-based CRT.
A total of 804 patients were randomized, 402 in each arm, to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus CRT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab for 14 cycles, or to placebo plus CRT followed by placebo maintenance.
As noted before, there was no significant difference between the study arms for the primary endpoint of EFS. The 24-month EFS rate was 63.2% for the pembrolizumab group, compared with 56.2% for controls. The respective 6-month EFS rates were 57.4% versus 52.1%.
In a post hoc analysis, both EFS and overall survival were numerically with pembrolizumab among patients with PD-L1 CPS of 20 or greater. The respective 2- and 3-year EFS rates were 71.2% versus 62.6%, and 66.7% versus 57.2%.
The 24-months overall survival rates were 83.3% with pembrolizumab and 79.9% with placebo, and 36-month rates were 79.1% and 73%, respectively.
Neither EFS rates nor OS rates among patients in this subgroup differed significantly; however, there were no new safety signals with the combination, Dr. Machiels said. The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 92.2% in the pembrolizumab arm versus 88.4% in the placebo arm. Four patients in the pembrolizumab arm and six in the control arm died from treatment-related causes.
Benefit still to be proven
In a media briefing held prior to his presentation, Dr. Machiels was asked how he could justify his conclusions about a benefit for adding pembrolizumab given that there was no difference between the treatment groups for the primary endpoint.
He said that when the investigators designed the trial 7 years ago, the CPS score for PD-L1 expression had not yet been developed, and that if it had been they might have designed the trial to explore the effect of the pembrolizumab chemoradiation combination according to CPS subgroups.
He also pointed to the numerically superior 2-year EFS and overall rates.
In the presidential symposium, James Larkin, MD, PhD, an invited discussant from the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, said that chemotherapy and anti–PD-1 therapies are known to offer benefit in advanced cancers despite the trial’s failure.
“There is a signal, particularly as we’ve seen in the high PD-L1 group,” he said, noting that the signal was consistent with that seen in the JAVELIN 100 study, which was also a negative trial. He cautioned against relying too heavily on the comparison, however, as JAVELIN 100 was conducted with avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, whereas pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor.
“Could there be an issue here with treatment schedule? An example and a comparison might be the PACIFIC study in non–small cell lung cancer, which is a positive trial, where actually the checkpoint inhibit with durvalumab was given immediately after the chemoradiotherapy, leading to benefit, rather than being concurrent,” he said.
Dr. Larkin also questioned whether, as codiscussant Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, suggested radiotherapy to lymph nodes might alter the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors.
“Clearly radiotherapy is the central component of treatment in this setting, so it would be quite difficult to scale too much on that, but the question is: ‘Could it be modified?’ For example, just to irradiate the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes and potentially spare noninvolved lymph nodes,” he said.
The KEYNOTE-412 study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Machiels reported uncompensated consulting to the company. Dr. Larkin reported consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck and others. Dr. Loi reported uncompensated advisory board activity for Merck and others.
PARIS – compared with CRT plus placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC), reported investigators of the KEYNOTE-412 trial.
Among 804 patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven, unresected locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas who were followed for a median of 47.7 months, the event-free survival (EFS) rate with the pembrolizumab/CRT combination followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was 63.2%, compared with 56.2% for CRT plus placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.83, said Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Despite the trial failing to meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Machiels expressed optimism about the results.
“Pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was associated with a favorable trend toward improved event-free survival versus placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer,” he said.
He noted that the 2-year EFS rate was 63% with pembrolizumab, compared with 56% with placebo.
The data also support the hypothesis that programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as measured by a combined positive score (CPS) could be a predictive biomarker for identifying those patients most likely to respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor, he added.
KEYNOTE-412 details
The rationale for combining the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy comes from the KEYNOTE-048 trial results of which showed a survival improvement for the use of pembrolizumab plus a platinum-containing regimen as a first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater.
In the current study, Dr. Machiels and colleagues studied whether adding pembrolizumab to CRT could benefit patients with treatment-naive unresected, locally advanced HNSCC.
Eligible patients included those with stage T3 or T4, N0-N3 or any N2a-3 (T1-T4) cancers of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oral cavity, and either p16-negative oropharynx cancers or T4 or N3 p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Patients were required to be eligible for high-dose cisplatin-based CRT.
A total of 804 patients were randomized, 402 in each arm, to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus CRT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab for 14 cycles, or to placebo plus CRT followed by placebo maintenance.
As noted before, there was no significant difference between the study arms for the primary endpoint of EFS. The 24-month EFS rate was 63.2% for the pembrolizumab group, compared with 56.2% for controls. The respective 6-month EFS rates were 57.4% versus 52.1%.
In a post hoc analysis, both EFS and overall survival were numerically with pembrolizumab among patients with PD-L1 CPS of 20 or greater. The respective 2- and 3-year EFS rates were 71.2% versus 62.6%, and 66.7% versus 57.2%.
The 24-months overall survival rates were 83.3% with pembrolizumab and 79.9% with placebo, and 36-month rates were 79.1% and 73%, respectively.
Neither EFS rates nor OS rates among patients in this subgroup differed significantly; however, there were no new safety signals with the combination, Dr. Machiels said. The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 92.2% in the pembrolizumab arm versus 88.4% in the placebo arm. Four patients in the pembrolizumab arm and six in the control arm died from treatment-related causes.
Benefit still to be proven
In a media briefing held prior to his presentation, Dr. Machiels was asked how he could justify his conclusions about a benefit for adding pembrolizumab given that there was no difference between the treatment groups for the primary endpoint.
He said that when the investigators designed the trial 7 years ago, the CPS score for PD-L1 expression had not yet been developed, and that if it had been they might have designed the trial to explore the effect of the pembrolizumab chemoradiation combination according to CPS subgroups.
He also pointed to the numerically superior 2-year EFS and overall rates.
In the presidential symposium, James Larkin, MD, PhD, an invited discussant from the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, said that chemotherapy and anti–PD-1 therapies are known to offer benefit in advanced cancers despite the trial’s failure.
“There is a signal, particularly as we’ve seen in the high PD-L1 group,” he said, noting that the signal was consistent with that seen in the JAVELIN 100 study, which was also a negative trial. He cautioned against relying too heavily on the comparison, however, as JAVELIN 100 was conducted with avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, whereas pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor.
“Could there be an issue here with treatment schedule? An example and a comparison might be the PACIFIC study in non–small cell lung cancer, which is a positive trial, where actually the checkpoint inhibit with durvalumab was given immediately after the chemoradiotherapy, leading to benefit, rather than being concurrent,” he said.
Dr. Larkin also questioned whether, as codiscussant Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, suggested radiotherapy to lymph nodes might alter the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors.
“Clearly radiotherapy is the central component of treatment in this setting, so it would be quite difficult to scale too much on that, but the question is: ‘Could it be modified?’ For example, just to irradiate the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes and potentially spare noninvolved lymph nodes,” he said.
The KEYNOTE-412 study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Machiels reported uncompensated consulting to the company. Dr. Larkin reported consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck and others. Dr. Loi reported uncompensated advisory board activity for Merck and others.
AT ESMO CONGRESS 2022