Breast Cancer ICYMI

Key clinical point: High quality diet and higher total intake of phytochemicals and polyphenols are significantly associated with lower migraine severity in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: Migraine severity was negatively correlated with the intake of good quality diet (correlation coefficient [r] −0.37; P = .0003) and higher intake of phytochemicals (r −0.37; P = .0003) and phenolic components, such as flavanones (r −0.27; P = .01) and lignans (r −0.27; P = .01). The total intake of phenols and flavonoids from olive oil, oil, and fruits was also significantly negatively correlated with migraine severity (each P ≤ .04).

Study details: This questionnaire-based study included 90 patients with episodic migraine who were assessed for their migraine characteristics and dietary phytochemical and polyphenol intake.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bakırhan H et al. Migraine severity, disability, and duration: Is a good diet quality, high intake of phytochemicals and polyphenols important? Front Nutr. 2022;9:1041907 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1041907

Key clinical point: High quality diet and higher total intake of phytochemicals and polyphenols are significantly associated with lower migraine severity in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: Migraine severity was negatively correlated with the intake of good quality diet (correlation coefficient [r] −0.37; P = .0003) and higher intake of phytochemicals (r −0.37; P = .0003) and phenolic components, such as flavanones (r −0.27; P = .01) and lignans (r −0.27; P = .01). The total intake of phenols and flavonoids from olive oil, oil, and fruits was also significantly negatively correlated with migraine severity (each P ≤ .04).

Study details: This questionnaire-based study included 90 patients with episodic migraine who were assessed for their migraine characteristics and dietary phytochemical and polyphenol intake.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bakırhan H et al. Migraine severity, disability, and duration: Is a good diet quality, high intake of phytochemicals and polyphenols important? Front Nutr. 2022;9:1041907 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1041907

Key clinical point: High quality diet and higher total intake of phytochemicals and polyphenols are significantly associated with lower migraine severity in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: Migraine severity was negatively correlated with the intake of good quality diet (correlation coefficient [r] −0.37; P = .0003) and higher intake of phytochemicals (r −0.37; P = .0003) and phenolic components, such as flavanones (r −0.27; P = .01) and lignans (r −0.27; P = .01). The total intake of phenols and flavonoids from olive oil, oil, and fruits was also significantly negatively correlated with migraine severity (each P ≤ .04).

Study details: This questionnaire-based study included 90 patients with episodic migraine who were assessed for their migraine characteristics and dietary phytochemical and polyphenol intake.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bakırhan H et al. Migraine severity, disability, and duration: Is a good diet quality, high intake of phytochemicals and polyphenols important? Front Nutr. 2022;9:1041907 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1041907

Key clinical point: The first two administrations of onabotulinum toxin A (onabotA) were well-tolerated in patients with chronic migraine, with adverse events (AE) being mostly mild and tolerability to onabotA not being correlated with AE or clinical response.

Major finding: The mean tolerability scores were 7.8/10 and 7.2/10 in the first and second onabotA administration sessions, respectively, with no association being observed between tolerability and AE occurrence or clinical response. The AE were mostly mild and were reported by 71.4% and 68.6% of patients after the first and second onabotA administration sessions, respectively; 49.5% of patients showed a 50% response rate between weeks 20 and 24.

Study details: This was an observational prospective cohort study including 105 patients with chronic migraine who had received onabotA for the first time.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: García-Azorín D et al. Real-world evaluation of the tolerability to onabotulinum toxin A: The RETO study. Toxins (Basel). 2022;14(12),850 (Dec 3). Doi: 10.3390/toxins14120850.

Key clinical point: The first two administrations of onabotulinum toxin A (onabotA) were well-tolerated in patients with chronic migraine, with adverse events (AE) being mostly mild and tolerability to onabotA not being correlated with AE or clinical response.

Major finding: The mean tolerability scores were 7.8/10 and 7.2/10 in the first and second onabotA administration sessions, respectively, with no association being observed between tolerability and AE occurrence or clinical response. The AE were mostly mild and were reported by 71.4% and 68.6% of patients after the first and second onabotA administration sessions, respectively; 49.5% of patients showed a 50% response rate between weeks 20 and 24.

Study details: This was an observational prospective cohort study including 105 patients with chronic migraine who had received onabotA for the first time.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: García-Azorín D et al. Real-world evaluation of the tolerability to onabotulinum toxin A: The RETO study. Toxins (Basel). 2022;14(12),850 (Dec 3). Doi: 10.3390/toxins14120850.

Key clinical point: The first two administrations of onabotulinum toxin A (onabotA) were well-tolerated in patients with chronic migraine, with adverse events (AE) being mostly mild and tolerability to onabotA not being correlated with AE or clinical response.

Major finding: The mean tolerability scores were 7.8/10 and 7.2/10 in the first and second onabotA administration sessions, respectively, with no association being observed between tolerability and AE occurrence or clinical response. The AE were mostly mild and were reported by 71.4% and 68.6% of patients after the first and second onabotA administration sessions, respectively; 49.5% of patients showed a 50% response rate between weeks 20 and 24.

Study details: This was an observational prospective cohort study including 105 patients with chronic migraine who had received onabotA for the first time.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: García-Azorín D et al. Real-world evaluation of the tolerability to onabotulinum toxin A: The RETO study. Toxins (Basel). 2022;14(12),850 (Dec 3). Doi: 10.3390/toxins14120850.

Key clinical point: Erenumab demonstrated an early onset of and superior efficacy in achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) than topiramate in patients with migraine.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving erenumab vs topiramate reported ≥50% reduction in MMD at 1 month (39.2% vs 24.0%) and during the last 3 months (60.3% vs 43.3%) of treatment (both P < .001). Reductions in MMD over last 3 months were significantly higher with erenumab vs topiramate (mean difference −1.24 days; P < .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 HER-MES trial included 776 patients with migraine who were naive to migraine prophylactics or had failed or were ill-suited for metoprolol/propranolol, amitriptyline, or flunarizine and were randomized to receive erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany. Four authors, including the first author, declared being employees of and holding stocks in Novartis. U Reuter reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other supports from Novartis and various other sources.

Source: Ehrlich M et al. Erenumab versus topiramate: Post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER‑MES study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:141 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01511-y

Key clinical point: Erenumab demonstrated an early onset of and superior efficacy in achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) than topiramate in patients with migraine.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving erenumab vs topiramate reported ≥50% reduction in MMD at 1 month (39.2% vs 24.0%) and during the last 3 months (60.3% vs 43.3%) of treatment (both P < .001). Reductions in MMD over last 3 months were significantly higher with erenumab vs topiramate (mean difference −1.24 days; P < .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 HER-MES trial included 776 patients with migraine who were naive to migraine prophylactics or had failed or were ill-suited for metoprolol/propranolol, amitriptyline, or flunarizine and were randomized to receive erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany. Four authors, including the first author, declared being employees of and holding stocks in Novartis. U Reuter reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other supports from Novartis and various other sources.

Source: Ehrlich M et al. Erenumab versus topiramate: Post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER‑MES study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:141 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01511-y

Key clinical point: Erenumab demonstrated an early onset of and superior efficacy in achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) than topiramate in patients with migraine.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving erenumab vs topiramate reported ≥50% reduction in MMD at 1 month (39.2% vs 24.0%) and during the last 3 months (60.3% vs 43.3%) of treatment (both P < .001). Reductions in MMD over last 3 months were significantly higher with erenumab vs topiramate (mean difference −1.24 days; P < .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 HER-MES trial included 776 patients with migraine who were naive to migraine prophylactics or had failed or were ill-suited for metoprolol/propranolol, amitriptyline, or flunarizine and were randomized to receive erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany. Four authors, including the first author, declared being employees of and holding stocks in Novartis. U Reuter reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other supports from Novartis and various other sources.

Source: Ehrlich M et al. Erenumab versus topiramate: Post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER‑MES study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:141 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01511-y

Key clinical point: Monthly erenumab demonstrated promising short-term clinical effectiveness in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic migraine; however, less than one-fourth of the patients sustained efficacy over 2 years.

Major finding: The monthly migraine days (MMD) reduced significantly after 6 months of erenumab treatment (mean reduction [MR] 7.5 days; P < .001), with 48% of patients achieving ≥30% reduction in MMD. At months 12 and 24, 38% and 23% of patients remained ≥30% responders, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a 2-year real-world prospective analysis of a clinical audit including 160 patients with difficult-to-treat chronic migraine who failed an average of 8.3 preventive treatments and received monthly erenumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Three authors declared receiving honoraria for speaking or participation in advisory boards or funding for travel from various sources.

Source: Andreou AP et al. Two-year effectiveness of erenumab in resistant chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:139 (Nov 4). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01507-8

Key clinical point: Monthly erenumab demonstrated promising short-term clinical effectiveness in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic migraine; however, less than one-fourth of the patients sustained efficacy over 2 years.

Major finding: The monthly migraine days (MMD) reduced significantly after 6 months of erenumab treatment (mean reduction [MR] 7.5 days; P < .001), with 48% of patients achieving ≥30% reduction in MMD. At months 12 and 24, 38% and 23% of patients remained ≥30% responders, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a 2-year real-world prospective analysis of a clinical audit including 160 patients with difficult-to-treat chronic migraine who failed an average of 8.3 preventive treatments and received monthly erenumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Three authors declared receiving honoraria for speaking or participation in advisory boards or funding for travel from various sources.

Source: Andreou AP et al. Two-year effectiveness of erenumab in resistant chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:139 (Nov 4). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01507-8

Key clinical point: Monthly erenumab demonstrated promising short-term clinical effectiveness in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic migraine; however, less than one-fourth of the patients sustained efficacy over 2 years.

Major finding: The monthly migraine days (MMD) reduced significantly after 6 months of erenumab treatment (mean reduction [MR] 7.5 days; P < .001), with 48% of patients achieving ≥30% reduction in MMD. At months 12 and 24, 38% and 23% of patients remained ≥30% responders, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a 2-year real-world prospective analysis of a clinical audit including 160 patients with difficult-to-treat chronic migraine who failed an average of 8.3 preventive treatments and received monthly erenumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Three authors declared receiving honoraria for speaking or participation in advisory boards or funding for travel from various sources.

Source: Andreou AP et al. Two-year effectiveness of erenumab in resistant chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:139 (Nov 4). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01507-8

Key clinical point: Prior use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) increased the risk for incident migraine with or without aura irrespective of the history and duration of use.

Major finding: Compared with non-use, past and current use of PPI increased the odds of migraine by 2.56-fold (P < .001) and 4.66-fold (P < .001), respectively, with the risk being persistent for migraine with or without aura (P < .001) and higher with PPI use for ≥30 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.41; P < .001) vs <30 (aOR 2.49; P < .001) days.

Study details: This retrospective, nested case-control study included 28,159 patients with incident migraine with or without aura and 112,636 propensity score-matched control participants.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea from the Korean Ministry of Science and ICT. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kang HS et al. Association between migraines and prior proton pump inhibitor use: A nested case-control study using a national health screening cohort. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15(11):1385 (Nov 10). Doi: 10.3390/ph15111385

Key clinical point: Prior use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) increased the risk for incident migraine with or without aura irrespective of the history and duration of use.

Major finding: Compared with non-use, past and current use of PPI increased the odds of migraine by 2.56-fold (P < .001) and 4.66-fold (P < .001), respectively, with the risk being persistent for migraine with or without aura (P < .001) and higher with PPI use for ≥30 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.41; P < .001) vs <30 (aOR 2.49; P < .001) days.

Study details: This retrospective, nested case-control study included 28,159 patients with incident migraine with or without aura and 112,636 propensity score-matched control participants.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea from the Korean Ministry of Science and ICT. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kang HS et al. Association between migraines and prior proton pump inhibitor use: A nested case-control study using a national health screening cohort. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15(11):1385 (Nov 10). Doi: 10.3390/ph15111385

Key clinical point: Prior use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) increased the risk for incident migraine with or without aura irrespective of the history and duration of use.

Major finding: Compared with non-use, past and current use of PPI increased the odds of migraine by 2.56-fold (P < .001) and 4.66-fold (P < .001), respectively, with the risk being persistent for migraine with or without aura (P < .001) and higher with PPI use for ≥30 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.41; P < .001) vs <30 (aOR 2.49; P < .001) days.

Study details: This retrospective, nested case-control study included 28,159 patients with incident migraine with or without aura and 112,636 propensity score-matched control participants.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea from the Korean Ministry of Science and ICT. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kang HS et al. Association between migraines and prior proton pump inhibitor use: A nested case-control study using a national health screening cohort. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15(11):1385 (Nov 10). Doi: 10.3390/ph15111385

Key clinical point: Alcohol intake slightly reduced the likelihood of migraine attacks 48 hours after consumption in an English-speaking cohort of patients with episodic migraine who identified themselves as mostly low-dose alcohol consumers.

Major finding: The probability of migraine attack 48 hours after consuming alcohol was 25% lower than that after no alcohol consumption (adjusted odds ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.68-0.82); however, alcohol consumption had no significant effect on migraine probability 24 hours after consumption.

Study details: This observational prospective cohort study included 487 patients with episodic migraine who reported 5913 migraine attacks and were alcohol consumers.

Disclosures: The study was partially funded by Curelator, Inc. M Vives-Mestres and A Casanova declared receiving consulting fees and holding stock options in Curelator, Inc. N Rosen reported ties with a headache society, journals, and various other sources.

Source: Vives-Mestres M et al. Alcohol as a trigger of migraine attacks in people with migraine. Results from a large prospective cohort study in English-speaking countries. Headache. 2022;62:1329-1338. (Nov 27). Doi: 10.1111/head.14428

Key clinical point: Alcohol intake slightly reduced the likelihood of migraine attacks 48 hours after consumption in an English-speaking cohort of patients with episodic migraine who identified themselves as mostly low-dose alcohol consumers.

Major finding: The probability of migraine attack 48 hours after consuming alcohol was 25% lower than that after no alcohol consumption (adjusted odds ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.68-0.82); however, alcohol consumption had no significant effect on migraine probability 24 hours after consumption.

Study details: This observational prospective cohort study included 487 patients with episodic migraine who reported 5913 migraine attacks and were alcohol consumers.

Disclosures: The study was partially funded by Curelator, Inc. M Vives-Mestres and A Casanova declared receiving consulting fees and holding stock options in Curelator, Inc. N Rosen reported ties with a headache society, journals, and various other sources.

Source: Vives-Mestres M et al. Alcohol as a trigger of migraine attacks in people with migraine. Results from a large prospective cohort study in English-speaking countries. Headache. 2022;62:1329-1338. (Nov 27). Doi: 10.1111/head.14428

Key clinical point: Alcohol intake slightly reduced the likelihood of migraine attacks 48 hours after consumption in an English-speaking cohort of patients with episodic migraine who identified themselves as mostly low-dose alcohol consumers.

Major finding: The probability of migraine attack 48 hours after consuming alcohol was 25% lower than that after no alcohol consumption (adjusted odds ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.68-0.82); however, alcohol consumption had no significant effect on migraine probability 24 hours after consumption.

Study details: This observational prospective cohort study included 487 patients with episodic migraine who reported 5913 migraine attacks and were alcohol consumers.

Disclosures: The study was partially funded by Curelator, Inc. M Vives-Mestres and A Casanova declared receiving consulting fees and holding stock options in Curelator, Inc. N Rosen reported ties with a headache society, journals, and various other sources.

Source: Vives-Mestres M et al. Alcohol as a trigger of migraine attacks in people with migraine. Results from a large prospective cohort study in English-speaking countries. Headache. 2022;62:1329-1338. (Nov 27). Doi: 10.1111/head.14428

Key clinical point: Once-daily atogepant at doses of 30 and 60 mg significantly improved the performance of social, work-related, and daily activities compared with placebo in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: At week 12, atogepant (30 and 60 mg) vs placebo significantly improved Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (least-squares mean difference [LSMD] 10.08 and 10.8, respectively; both P < .0001). Atogepant at doses of 30 and 60 mg significantly improved monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary Performance of Daily Activities (P = .0003 and P < .0001, respectively) and Physical Impairment (P = .001 and P < .0001, respectively) scores across the 12-week treatment.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3, ADVANCE trial including 873 patients with episodic migraine who were randomly assigned to receive once-daily atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie/Allergan. Four authors declared being current or former employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie. The lead author and several other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Lipton RB et al. Effect of atogepant for preventive migraine treatment on patient-reported outcomes in the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Neurology. 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201568

Key clinical point: Once-daily atogepant at doses of 30 and 60 mg significantly improved the performance of social, work-related, and daily activities compared with placebo in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: At week 12, atogepant (30 and 60 mg) vs placebo significantly improved Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (least-squares mean difference [LSMD] 10.08 and 10.8, respectively; both P < .0001). Atogepant at doses of 30 and 60 mg significantly improved monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary Performance of Daily Activities (P = .0003 and P < .0001, respectively) and Physical Impairment (P = .001 and P < .0001, respectively) scores across the 12-week treatment.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3, ADVANCE trial including 873 patients with episodic migraine who were randomly assigned to receive once-daily atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie/Allergan. Four authors declared being current or former employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie. The lead author and several other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Lipton RB et al. Effect of atogepant for preventive migraine treatment on patient-reported outcomes in the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Neurology. 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201568

Key clinical point: Once-daily atogepant at doses of 30 and 60 mg significantly improved the performance of social, work-related, and daily activities compared with placebo in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: At week 12, atogepant (30 and 60 mg) vs placebo significantly improved Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (least-squares mean difference [LSMD] 10.08 and 10.8, respectively; both P < .0001). Atogepant at doses of 30 and 60 mg significantly improved monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary Performance of Daily Activities (P = .0003 and P < .0001, respectively) and Physical Impairment (P = .001 and P < .0001, respectively) scores across the 12-week treatment.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3, ADVANCE trial including 873 patients with episodic migraine who were randomly assigned to receive once-daily atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie/Allergan. Four authors declared being current or former employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie. The lead author and several other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Lipton RB et al. Effect of atogepant for preventive migraine treatment on patient-reported outcomes in the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Neurology. 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201568

In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.

Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.

“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.

But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.

“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.

They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.

In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.

Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.

Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.

This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.

The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.

It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.

“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
 

Reverberations of Right to Try

The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.

After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.

She died in 2001 at age 21.

Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.

Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.

“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.

Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.

The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.

“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”

He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.

Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.

The response, she said, was predictable.

“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “

The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
 

Suing the DEA

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.

They decided to sue.

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.

The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.

In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.

In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.

In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”

In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”

The government’s response is due in January 2023.

Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”

Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.

Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.

In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.

And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
 

The fight north of the border

In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.

After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.

Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.

In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.

“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”

TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.

But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.

Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”

As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.

“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.

In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
 

An uncertain future

Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.

When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.

Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.

That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.

In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.

“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”

A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”

But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.

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

In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.

Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.

“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.

But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.

“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.

They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.

In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.

Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.

Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.

This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.

The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.

It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.

“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
 

Reverberations of Right to Try

The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.

After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.

She died in 2001 at age 21.

Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.

Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.

“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.

Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.

The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.

“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”

He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.

Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.

The response, she said, was predictable.

“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “

The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
 

Suing the DEA

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.

They decided to sue.

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.

The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.

In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.

In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.

In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”

In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”

The government’s response is due in January 2023.

Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”

Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.

Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.

In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.

And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
 

The fight north of the border

In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.

After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.

Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.

In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.

“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”

TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.

But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.

Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”

As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.

“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.

In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
 

An uncertain future

Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.

When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.

Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.

That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.

In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.

“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”

A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”

But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.

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

In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.

Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.

“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.

But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.

“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.

They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.

In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.

Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.

Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.

This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.

The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.

It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.

“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
 

Reverberations of Right to Try

The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.

After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.

She died in 2001 at age 21.

Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.

Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.

“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.

Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.

The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.

“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”

He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.

Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.

The response, she said, was predictable.

“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “

The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
 

Suing the DEA

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.

They decided to sue.

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.

The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.

In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.

In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.

In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”

In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”

The government’s response is due in January 2023.

Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”

Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.

Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.

In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.

And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
 

The fight north of the border

In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.

After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.

Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.

In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.

“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”

TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.

But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.

Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”

As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.

“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.

In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
 

An uncertain future

Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.

When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.

Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.

That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.

In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.

“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”

A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”

But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Patients with dementia and active seizures experience faster cognitive and functional decline and have a greater risk of dying younger than people with dementia who don’t have seizures, according to a multicenter study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“When we compared patients with seizures with those who did not have seizures, we found that patients with seizures were more likely to have more severe cognitive impairment; they were more likely to have physical dependence and so worse functional outcomes; and they also had higher mortality rates at a younger age,” lead study author Ifrah Zawar, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

“The average age of mortality for seizure patients was around 72 years and the average age of mortality for nonseizure patients was around 79 years, so there was a 7- to 8-year difference in mortality,” she said.
 

Seizures make matters worse

The study analyzed data on 26,425 patients with dementia, 374 (1.4%) of whom had seizures, collected from 2005 to 2021 at 39 Alzheimer’s disease centers in the United States. Patients who had seizures were significantly younger when cognitive decline began (ages 62.9 vs. 68.4 years, P < .001) and died younger (72.99 vs. 79.72 years, P < .001).

The study also found a number of factors associated with active seizures, including a history of dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation (odds ratio, 5.55; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.17; P < .001), transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.72; P = .003), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.92; P < .001), Parkinson’s disease (OR, 1.79; P = .025), active depression (OR, 1.61; P < .001) and lower education (OR, 0.97; P =.043).

After the study made adjustments for sex and other associated factors, it found that patients with seizures were still at a 76% higher risk of dying younger (hazard ratio, 1.76; P < .001).

The study also determined that patients with seizures had worse functional assessment scores and were more likely to be physically dependent on others (OR, 2.52; P < .001). Seizure patients also performed worse on Mini-Mental Status Examination (18.50 vs. 22.88; P < .001) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of boxes (7.95 vs. 4.28; P < .001) after adjusting for age and duration of cognitive decline.
 

A tip for caregivers

Dr. Zawar acknowledged that differentiating seizures from transient bouts of confusion in people with dementia can be difficult for family members and caregivers, but she offered advice to help them do so. “If they notice any unusual confusion or any altered mentation which is episodic in nature,” she said, “they should bring it to the neurologist’s attention as early as possible, because there are studies that have shown the diagnosis of seizures is delayed, and if they are treated in time they can be well-controlled.” Electroencephalography can also confirm the presence of seizures, she added.

Double whammy

One limitation of this study is the lack of details on the types of seizures the participants had along with the inconsistency of EEGs performed on the study population. “In future studies, I would like to have more EEG data on the types of seizures and the frequency of seizures to assess these factors further,” Dr. Zawar said.

Having more detailed information on the seizures would make the findings more valuable, Andrew J. Cole, MD, director of the epilepsy service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said in an interview. “We know a lot about clinically apparent seizures, as witnessed by this paper, but we still don’t know a whole lot about clinically silent or cryptic or nighttime-only seizures that maybe no one would really recognize as such unless they were specifically looking for them, and this paper doesn’t address that issue,” he said.

While the finding that patients with other neurologic diseases have more seizures even if they also have Alzheimer’s disease isn’t “a huge surprise,” Dr. Cole added. “On the other hand, the paper is important because it shows us that in the course of having Alzheimer’s disease, having seizures also makes your outcome worse, the speed of progression faster, and it complicates the management and living with this disease, and they make that point quite clear.”

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Cole have no relevant disclosures.
 

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Patients with dementia and active seizures experience faster cognitive and functional decline and have a greater risk of dying younger than people with dementia who don’t have seizures, according to a multicenter study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“When we compared patients with seizures with those who did not have seizures, we found that patients with seizures were more likely to have more severe cognitive impairment; they were more likely to have physical dependence and so worse functional outcomes; and they also had higher mortality rates at a younger age,” lead study author Ifrah Zawar, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

“The average age of mortality for seizure patients was around 72 years and the average age of mortality for nonseizure patients was around 79 years, so there was a 7- to 8-year difference in mortality,” she said.
 

Seizures make matters worse

The study analyzed data on 26,425 patients with dementia, 374 (1.4%) of whom had seizures, collected from 2005 to 2021 at 39 Alzheimer’s disease centers in the United States. Patients who had seizures were significantly younger when cognitive decline began (ages 62.9 vs. 68.4 years, P < .001) and died younger (72.99 vs. 79.72 years, P < .001).

The study also found a number of factors associated with active seizures, including a history of dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation (odds ratio, 5.55; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.17; P < .001), transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.72; P = .003), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.92; P < .001), Parkinson’s disease (OR, 1.79; P = .025), active depression (OR, 1.61; P < .001) and lower education (OR, 0.97; P =.043).

After the study made adjustments for sex and other associated factors, it found that patients with seizures were still at a 76% higher risk of dying younger (hazard ratio, 1.76; P < .001).

The study also determined that patients with seizures had worse functional assessment scores and were more likely to be physically dependent on others (OR, 2.52; P < .001). Seizure patients also performed worse on Mini-Mental Status Examination (18.50 vs. 22.88; P < .001) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of boxes (7.95 vs. 4.28; P < .001) after adjusting for age and duration of cognitive decline.
 

A tip for caregivers

Dr. Zawar acknowledged that differentiating seizures from transient bouts of confusion in people with dementia can be difficult for family members and caregivers, but she offered advice to help them do so. “If they notice any unusual confusion or any altered mentation which is episodic in nature,” she said, “they should bring it to the neurologist’s attention as early as possible, because there are studies that have shown the diagnosis of seizures is delayed, and if they are treated in time they can be well-controlled.” Electroencephalography can also confirm the presence of seizures, she added.

Double whammy

One limitation of this study is the lack of details on the types of seizures the participants had along with the inconsistency of EEGs performed on the study population. “In future studies, I would like to have more EEG data on the types of seizures and the frequency of seizures to assess these factors further,” Dr. Zawar said.

Having more detailed information on the seizures would make the findings more valuable, Andrew J. Cole, MD, director of the epilepsy service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said in an interview. “We know a lot about clinically apparent seizures, as witnessed by this paper, but we still don’t know a whole lot about clinically silent or cryptic or nighttime-only seizures that maybe no one would really recognize as such unless they were specifically looking for them, and this paper doesn’t address that issue,” he said.

While the finding that patients with other neurologic diseases have more seizures even if they also have Alzheimer’s disease isn’t “a huge surprise,” Dr. Cole added. “On the other hand, the paper is important because it shows us that in the course of having Alzheimer’s disease, having seizures also makes your outcome worse, the speed of progression faster, and it complicates the management and living with this disease, and they make that point quite clear.”

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Cole have no relevant disclosures.
 

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Patients with dementia and active seizures experience faster cognitive and functional decline and have a greater risk of dying younger than people with dementia who don’t have seizures, according to a multicenter study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“When we compared patients with seizures with those who did not have seizures, we found that patients with seizures were more likely to have more severe cognitive impairment; they were more likely to have physical dependence and so worse functional outcomes; and they also had higher mortality rates at a younger age,” lead study author Ifrah Zawar, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

“The average age of mortality for seizure patients was around 72 years and the average age of mortality for nonseizure patients was around 79 years, so there was a 7- to 8-year difference in mortality,” she said.
 

Seizures make matters worse

The study analyzed data on 26,425 patients with dementia, 374 (1.4%) of whom had seizures, collected from 2005 to 2021 at 39 Alzheimer’s disease centers in the United States. Patients who had seizures were significantly younger when cognitive decline began (ages 62.9 vs. 68.4 years, P < .001) and died younger (72.99 vs. 79.72 years, P < .001).

The study also found a number of factors associated with active seizures, including a history of dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation (odds ratio, 5.55; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.17; P < .001), transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.72; P = .003), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.92; P < .001), Parkinson’s disease (OR, 1.79; P = .025), active depression (OR, 1.61; P < .001) and lower education (OR, 0.97; P =.043).

After the study made adjustments for sex and other associated factors, it found that patients with seizures were still at a 76% higher risk of dying younger (hazard ratio, 1.76; P < .001).

The study also determined that patients with seizures had worse functional assessment scores and were more likely to be physically dependent on others (OR, 2.52; P < .001). Seizure patients also performed worse on Mini-Mental Status Examination (18.50 vs. 22.88; P < .001) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of boxes (7.95 vs. 4.28; P < .001) after adjusting for age and duration of cognitive decline.
 

A tip for caregivers

Dr. Zawar acknowledged that differentiating seizures from transient bouts of confusion in people with dementia can be difficult for family members and caregivers, but she offered advice to help them do so. “If they notice any unusual confusion or any altered mentation which is episodic in nature,” she said, “they should bring it to the neurologist’s attention as early as possible, because there are studies that have shown the diagnosis of seizures is delayed, and if they are treated in time they can be well-controlled.” Electroencephalography can also confirm the presence of seizures, she added.

Double whammy

One limitation of this study is the lack of details on the types of seizures the participants had along with the inconsistency of EEGs performed on the study population. “In future studies, I would like to have more EEG data on the types of seizures and the frequency of seizures to assess these factors further,” Dr. Zawar said.

Having more detailed information on the seizures would make the findings more valuable, Andrew J. Cole, MD, director of the epilepsy service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said in an interview. “We know a lot about clinically apparent seizures, as witnessed by this paper, but we still don’t know a whole lot about clinically silent or cryptic or nighttime-only seizures that maybe no one would really recognize as such unless they were specifically looking for them, and this paper doesn’t address that issue,” he said.

While the finding that patients with other neurologic diseases have more seizures even if they also have Alzheimer’s disease isn’t “a huge surprise,” Dr. Cole added. “On the other hand, the paper is important because it shows us that in the course of having Alzheimer’s disease, having seizures also makes your outcome worse, the speed of progression faster, and it complicates the management and living with this disease, and they make that point quite clear.”

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Cole have no relevant disclosures.
 

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancers resistant to aromatase inhibitors, the combination of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib with the selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant alone in the CAPItelllo-291 study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The benefit of adding capivasertib to fulvestrant was also seen in patients with previous exposure to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and in patients with liver metastases, reported Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London.

“Capivasertib plus fulvestrant has the potential to be a future treatment option for patients with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer who have progressed on an endocrine-based regimen,” he said.
 

AKT alterations

Many HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancers have activation of the AKT pathway through alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN, but this activation can also occur in the absence of genetic alterations. AKT signaling is also a mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, Dr. Turner said.

Capivasertib, a select inhibitor of the AKT isoforms 1, 2, and 3, was combined with fulvestrant in the phase 2 FAKTION trial. The combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in CDK4/6-naive postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit in this trial was more pronounced among patients with tumors bearing AKT pathway alterations, he said.

In the phase 3 CAPItello study, Dr. Turner and colleagues enrolled men and both pre- and postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer who experienced recurrence either during therapy with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or within 12 months of the end of therapy, or who had disease progression while on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer.

The patients could have no more than two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and no prior selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), mTOR inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, or AKT inhibitor. Patients with hemoglobin A1c below 8% and with diabetes not requiring insulin were eligible for the study. After stratification for liver metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, and geographic region, 708 patients were randomized to either capivasertib 400 mg twice daily 4 days on and 3 days off plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 4 weeks, or to fulvestrant in the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

Results

The dual primary endpoint was investigator assessed PFS in both the overall population and in those with AKT pathway alterations. The median PFS in the overall population was 7.2 months with the combination, compared with 3.6 months for fulvestrant alone, translating into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.60 (P < .001).

In the pathway-altered population, the median PFS was 7.3 months with capivasertib/fulvestrant vs. 3.1 months with fulvestrant placebo, which translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression on the combination of 0.50 (P < .001).

An exploratory analysis of PFS among patients either without pathway alterations or unknown AKT status showed median PFS of 7.2 months and 3.7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.70.

An analysis of benefit by subgroups in the overall population showed that the balance tipped in favor of the combination in nearly all categories, including among patients with or without liver metastases and with or without prior CDK4/6 inhibitor use.

Among patients with measurable disease at baseline the combination was associated with objective response rates (ORR) of 22.9% in the overall population and 28.8% in the pathway-altered population. The respective ORR for fulvestrant/placebo were 12.2% and 9.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff, but showed trends favoring capivasertib plus fulvestrant in both the overall and AKT-pathway-altered population.

There were four fatal adverse events in the combination arm (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia aspiration, and sepsis), and one in the fulvestrant alone arm (COVID-19).

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events among patients treated with the combination were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3 %), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). In all, 13% of patients randomized to capivasertib/fulvestrant discontinued therapy due to adverse events, compared with 2.3% of patients assigned to fulvestrant/placebo.

Dr. Turner said that the overall adverse event profile with the combination was manageable and consistent with data from previous studies.
 

‘Clinically relevant benefit’

Invited discussant Fabrice André, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, noted that the CAPItello-291 study is one of the first randomized trials enriched with patients whose tumors are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

“What are the take-home messages? First, there is a clinically relevant benefit in the overall population and in the PIK3CA mutant/AKT/PTEN altered population,” he said.

He noted that the exploratory analysis showed a small clinical benefit with an impressive hazard ratio but broad confidence interval in patients with biomarker-negative tumors, and noted that the study lacked either circulating tumor DNA analysis or exploration of other mechanisms of AKT pathway alteration.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Turner has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, and his institution has received research funding from the company. Dr. Andre disclosed fees to his hospital on his behalf from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, and Roche.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancers resistant to aromatase inhibitors, the combination of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib with the selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant alone in the CAPItelllo-291 study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The benefit of adding capivasertib to fulvestrant was also seen in patients with previous exposure to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and in patients with liver metastases, reported Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London.

“Capivasertib plus fulvestrant has the potential to be a future treatment option for patients with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer who have progressed on an endocrine-based regimen,” he said.
 

AKT alterations

Many HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancers have activation of the AKT pathway through alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN, but this activation can also occur in the absence of genetic alterations. AKT signaling is also a mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, Dr. Turner said.

Capivasertib, a select inhibitor of the AKT isoforms 1, 2, and 3, was combined with fulvestrant in the phase 2 FAKTION trial. The combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in CDK4/6-naive postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit in this trial was more pronounced among patients with tumors bearing AKT pathway alterations, he said.

In the phase 3 CAPItello study, Dr. Turner and colleagues enrolled men and both pre- and postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer who experienced recurrence either during therapy with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or within 12 months of the end of therapy, or who had disease progression while on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer.

The patients could have no more than two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and no prior selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), mTOR inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, or AKT inhibitor. Patients with hemoglobin A1c below 8% and with diabetes not requiring insulin were eligible for the study. After stratification for liver metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, and geographic region, 708 patients were randomized to either capivasertib 400 mg twice daily 4 days on and 3 days off plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 4 weeks, or to fulvestrant in the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

Results

The dual primary endpoint was investigator assessed PFS in both the overall population and in those with AKT pathway alterations. The median PFS in the overall population was 7.2 months with the combination, compared with 3.6 months for fulvestrant alone, translating into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.60 (P < .001).

In the pathway-altered population, the median PFS was 7.3 months with capivasertib/fulvestrant vs. 3.1 months with fulvestrant placebo, which translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression on the combination of 0.50 (P < .001).

An exploratory analysis of PFS among patients either without pathway alterations or unknown AKT status showed median PFS of 7.2 months and 3.7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.70.

An analysis of benefit by subgroups in the overall population showed that the balance tipped in favor of the combination in nearly all categories, including among patients with or without liver metastases and with or without prior CDK4/6 inhibitor use.

Among patients with measurable disease at baseline the combination was associated with objective response rates (ORR) of 22.9% in the overall population and 28.8% in the pathway-altered population. The respective ORR for fulvestrant/placebo were 12.2% and 9.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff, but showed trends favoring capivasertib plus fulvestrant in both the overall and AKT-pathway-altered population.

There were four fatal adverse events in the combination arm (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia aspiration, and sepsis), and one in the fulvestrant alone arm (COVID-19).

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events among patients treated with the combination were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3 %), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). In all, 13% of patients randomized to capivasertib/fulvestrant discontinued therapy due to adverse events, compared with 2.3% of patients assigned to fulvestrant/placebo.

Dr. Turner said that the overall adverse event profile with the combination was manageable and consistent with data from previous studies.
 

‘Clinically relevant benefit’

Invited discussant Fabrice André, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, noted that the CAPItello-291 study is one of the first randomized trials enriched with patients whose tumors are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

“What are the take-home messages? First, there is a clinically relevant benefit in the overall population and in the PIK3CA mutant/AKT/PTEN altered population,” he said.

He noted that the exploratory analysis showed a small clinical benefit with an impressive hazard ratio but broad confidence interval in patients with biomarker-negative tumors, and noted that the study lacked either circulating tumor DNA analysis or exploration of other mechanisms of AKT pathway alteration.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Turner has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, and his institution has received research funding from the company. Dr. Andre disclosed fees to his hospital on his behalf from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, and Roche.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancers resistant to aromatase inhibitors, the combination of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib with the selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant alone in the CAPItelllo-291 study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The benefit of adding capivasertib to fulvestrant was also seen in patients with previous exposure to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and in patients with liver metastases, reported Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London.

“Capivasertib plus fulvestrant has the potential to be a future treatment option for patients with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer who have progressed on an endocrine-based regimen,” he said.
 

AKT alterations

Many HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancers have activation of the AKT pathway through alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN, but this activation can also occur in the absence of genetic alterations. AKT signaling is also a mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, Dr. Turner said.

Capivasertib, a select inhibitor of the AKT isoforms 1, 2, and 3, was combined with fulvestrant in the phase 2 FAKTION trial. The combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in CDK4/6-naive postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit in this trial was more pronounced among patients with tumors bearing AKT pathway alterations, he said.

In the phase 3 CAPItello study, Dr. Turner and colleagues enrolled men and both pre- and postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer who experienced recurrence either during therapy with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or within 12 months of the end of therapy, or who had disease progression while on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer.

The patients could have no more than two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and no prior selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), mTOR inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, or AKT inhibitor. Patients with hemoglobin A1c below 8% and with diabetes not requiring insulin were eligible for the study. After stratification for liver metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, and geographic region, 708 patients were randomized to either capivasertib 400 mg twice daily 4 days on and 3 days off plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 4 weeks, or to fulvestrant in the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

Results

The dual primary endpoint was investigator assessed PFS in both the overall population and in those with AKT pathway alterations. The median PFS in the overall population was 7.2 months with the combination, compared with 3.6 months for fulvestrant alone, translating into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.60 (P < .001).

In the pathway-altered population, the median PFS was 7.3 months with capivasertib/fulvestrant vs. 3.1 months with fulvestrant placebo, which translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression on the combination of 0.50 (P < .001).

An exploratory analysis of PFS among patients either without pathway alterations or unknown AKT status showed median PFS of 7.2 months and 3.7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.70.

An analysis of benefit by subgroups in the overall population showed that the balance tipped in favor of the combination in nearly all categories, including among patients with or without liver metastases and with or without prior CDK4/6 inhibitor use.

Among patients with measurable disease at baseline the combination was associated with objective response rates (ORR) of 22.9% in the overall population and 28.8% in the pathway-altered population. The respective ORR for fulvestrant/placebo were 12.2% and 9.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff, but showed trends favoring capivasertib plus fulvestrant in both the overall and AKT-pathway-altered population.

There were four fatal adverse events in the combination arm (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia aspiration, and sepsis), and one in the fulvestrant alone arm (COVID-19).

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events among patients treated with the combination were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3 %), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). In all, 13% of patients randomized to capivasertib/fulvestrant discontinued therapy due to adverse events, compared with 2.3% of patients assigned to fulvestrant/placebo.

Dr. Turner said that the overall adverse event profile with the combination was manageable and consistent with data from previous studies.
 

‘Clinically relevant benefit’

Invited discussant Fabrice André, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, noted that the CAPItello-291 study is one of the first randomized trials enriched with patients whose tumors are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

“What are the take-home messages? First, there is a clinically relevant benefit in the overall population and in the PIK3CA mutant/AKT/PTEN altered population,” he said.

He noted that the exploratory analysis showed a small clinical benefit with an impressive hazard ratio but broad confidence interval in patients with biomarker-negative tumors, and noted that the study lacked either circulating tumor DNA analysis or exploration of other mechanisms of AKT pathway alteration.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Turner has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, and his institution has received research funding from the company. Dr. Andre disclosed fees to his hospital on his behalf from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, and Roche.