Clinician Reviews

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk declines after direct-acting antiviral treatment but remains high enough to justify screening for at least 7 years after hepatitis C cure, according to a new report.

Among patients with cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores of 3.25 or higher, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma appeared to decline progressively each year up to 7 years after a sustained virologic response, although the rate remained above the 1% per year threshold that warrants screening.

“The majority of patients with hepatitis C have been treated and cured in the United States,” George Ioannou, MD, the senior study author and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “After hepatitis C eradication, these patients generally do very well from the liver standpoint, but the one thing they have to continue worrying about is development of liver cancer.”

Dr. Ioannou, who is also director of hepatology at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, noted that patients may be screened “indefinitely,” which places a burden on the patients and the health care system.

“We are still not sure to what extent the risk of liver cancer declines after hepatitis C eradication as more and more time accrues,” he said. “In those who had cirrhosis of the liver prior to hepatitis C cure, we are still not certain if there is a time point after hepatitis C cure when we can tell a patient that their risk of liver cancer is now very low and we no longer need to keep screening for liver cancer.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Risk calculations

In a previous study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues found that hepatocellular carcinoma risk declined during the first 4 years of follow-up after a sustained virologic response from direct-acting antiviral medications. But the follow-up time wasn’t long enough to determine whether the cancer risk continues to decline to levels low enough to forgo screening.

In this study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues extended the follow-up to 7 years. They were curious to see whether the cancer risk declines enough to drop the screening requirement, particularly as related to pretreatment cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 scores.

The research team analyzed electronic health records from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of Veterans Health Administration records developed specifically for research purposes.

The researchers included 29,033 patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system who had been infected with hepatitis C virus and were treated with direct-acting antivirals between January 2013 and December 2015. The patients had a sustained virologic response, which is defined as a viral load below the lower limit of detection at least 12 weeks after therapy completion.

The patients were followed for incident hepatocellular carcinoma until December 2021. The researchers then calculated the annual incidence during each year of follow-up after treatment.

About 96.6% of patients were men, and 52.2% were non-Hispanic White persons. The average age was 61 years. The most common conditions were alcohol use disorder (43.7%), substance use disorder (37.7%), and diabetes (28.9%).

Among the 7,533 patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, 948 (12.6%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 4.9 years. Among patients with FIB-4 scores of 3.25 or higher, the annual incidence decreased from 3.8% in the first year to 1.4% in the seventh year but remained substantial up to 7 years after sustained virologic response. Among patients with both cirrhosis and a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate ranged from 0.7% to 1.3% and didn’t change significantly over time.

Among the 21,500 patients without pretreatment cirrhosis, 541 (or 2.5%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 5.4 years. The incidence rate was significantly higher for patients with high FIB-4 scores. Among patients without cirrhosis but who had a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate remained stable but substantial (from 0.8% to 1.3%) for up to 7 years.

In a subgroup analysis that examined incidence according to changes in FIB-4 scores before and after treatment, the rate remained high among those with cirrhosis regardless of a score change. Among those without cirrhosis but who had a persistently high FIB-4 score, the incidence was high. In those without cirrhosis whose FIB-4 score dropped, the incidence was lower.

“The study demonstrates a clear decline in the risk of liver cancer over time after hepatitis C cure in the highest-risk group. This is very positive news for patients,” Dr. Ioannou said. “However, even with that decline in risk up to 7 years after eradication of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, the risk is still high enough to warrant liver cancer screening.”
 

Future concerns

For a follow-up study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues plan to adjust their analyses for other factors that influence the risk of liver cancer, such as age and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Other studies could increase the follow-up time beyond 7 years and assess how changes in diabetes, weight management, and alcohol use might affect liver cancer risk.

“With the availability of safe and effective direct-acting antiviral treatments, a growing number of patients have been or will be treated and cured of their hepatitis C infection,” Nicole Kim, MD, one of the lead authors and a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

“It is therefore important for us to develop a better understanding of how liver cancer risk might change after treatment, so we can improve the care we provide to this patient population,” she said.

The results require validation in nonveteran cohorts, the study authors write, as well as follow-up after the COVID-19 pandemic, when screening and diagnostic practices were restricted.

“Several studies have demonstrated that HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] surveillance is underused in clinical practice, including in patients after [sustained virologic response],” Amit Singal, MD, clinical chief of hepatology and medical director of the liver tumor program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Singal, who wasn’t involved with this study, is evaluating several intervention strategies to increase surveillance utilization. His research group is conducting a multicenter randomized trial using mailed outreach invitations and is also evaluating a biomarker, PLSec-AFP, to identify patients with the highest risks who may warrant more intensive surveillance strategies.

“We have recently validated the performance of this biomarker in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis, including some with cured hepatitis C virus infection,” he said.

The study was funded by an NIH/NCI grant and a VA CSR under Dr. Ioannou. The manuscript writing was supported by the NIH under Dr. Kim and co-author Philip Vutien. Dr. Singal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk declines after direct-acting antiviral treatment but remains high enough to justify screening for at least 7 years after hepatitis C cure, according to a new report.

Among patients with cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores of 3.25 or higher, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma appeared to decline progressively each year up to 7 years after a sustained virologic response, although the rate remained above the 1% per year threshold that warrants screening.

“The majority of patients with hepatitis C have been treated and cured in the United States,” George Ioannou, MD, the senior study author and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “After hepatitis C eradication, these patients generally do very well from the liver standpoint, but the one thing they have to continue worrying about is development of liver cancer.”

Dr. Ioannou, who is also director of hepatology at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, noted that patients may be screened “indefinitely,” which places a burden on the patients and the health care system.

“We are still not sure to what extent the risk of liver cancer declines after hepatitis C eradication as more and more time accrues,” he said. “In those who had cirrhosis of the liver prior to hepatitis C cure, we are still not certain if there is a time point after hepatitis C cure when we can tell a patient that their risk of liver cancer is now very low and we no longer need to keep screening for liver cancer.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Risk calculations

In a previous study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues found that hepatocellular carcinoma risk declined during the first 4 years of follow-up after a sustained virologic response from direct-acting antiviral medications. But the follow-up time wasn’t long enough to determine whether the cancer risk continues to decline to levels low enough to forgo screening.

In this study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues extended the follow-up to 7 years. They were curious to see whether the cancer risk declines enough to drop the screening requirement, particularly as related to pretreatment cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 scores.

The research team analyzed electronic health records from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of Veterans Health Administration records developed specifically for research purposes.

The researchers included 29,033 patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system who had been infected with hepatitis C virus and were treated with direct-acting antivirals between January 2013 and December 2015. The patients had a sustained virologic response, which is defined as a viral load below the lower limit of detection at least 12 weeks after therapy completion.

The patients were followed for incident hepatocellular carcinoma until December 2021. The researchers then calculated the annual incidence during each year of follow-up after treatment.

About 96.6% of patients were men, and 52.2% were non-Hispanic White persons. The average age was 61 years. The most common conditions were alcohol use disorder (43.7%), substance use disorder (37.7%), and diabetes (28.9%).

Among the 7,533 patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, 948 (12.6%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 4.9 years. Among patients with FIB-4 scores of 3.25 or higher, the annual incidence decreased from 3.8% in the first year to 1.4% in the seventh year but remained substantial up to 7 years after sustained virologic response. Among patients with both cirrhosis and a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate ranged from 0.7% to 1.3% and didn’t change significantly over time.

Among the 21,500 patients without pretreatment cirrhosis, 541 (or 2.5%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 5.4 years. The incidence rate was significantly higher for patients with high FIB-4 scores. Among patients without cirrhosis but who had a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate remained stable but substantial (from 0.8% to 1.3%) for up to 7 years.

In a subgroup analysis that examined incidence according to changes in FIB-4 scores before and after treatment, the rate remained high among those with cirrhosis regardless of a score change. Among those without cirrhosis but who had a persistently high FIB-4 score, the incidence was high. In those without cirrhosis whose FIB-4 score dropped, the incidence was lower.

“The study demonstrates a clear decline in the risk of liver cancer over time after hepatitis C cure in the highest-risk group. This is very positive news for patients,” Dr. Ioannou said. “However, even with that decline in risk up to 7 years after eradication of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, the risk is still high enough to warrant liver cancer screening.”
 

Future concerns

For a follow-up study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues plan to adjust their analyses for other factors that influence the risk of liver cancer, such as age and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Other studies could increase the follow-up time beyond 7 years and assess how changes in diabetes, weight management, and alcohol use might affect liver cancer risk.

“With the availability of safe and effective direct-acting antiviral treatments, a growing number of patients have been or will be treated and cured of their hepatitis C infection,” Nicole Kim, MD, one of the lead authors and a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

“It is therefore important for us to develop a better understanding of how liver cancer risk might change after treatment, so we can improve the care we provide to this patient population,” she said.

The results require validation in nonveteran cohorts, the study authors write, as well as follow-up after the COVID-19 pandemic, when screening and diagnostic practices were restricted.

“Several studies have demonstrated that HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] surveillance is underused in clinical practice, including in patients after [sustained virologic response],” Amit Singal, MD, clinical chief of hepatology and medical director of the liver tumor program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Singal, who wasn’t involved with this study, is evaluating several intervention strategies to increase surveillance utilization. His research group is conducting a multicenter randomized trial using mailed outreach invitations and is also evaluating a biomarker, PLSec-AFP, to identify patients with the highest risks who may warrant more intensive surveillance strategies.

“We have recently validated the performance of this biomarker in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis, including some with cured hepatitis C virus infection,” he said.

The study was funded by an NIH/NCI grant and a VA CSR under Dr. Ioannou. The manuscript writing was supported by the NIH under Dr. Kim and co-author Philip Vutien. Dr. Singal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk declines after direct-acting antiviral treatment but remains high enough to justify screening for at least 7 years after hepatitis C cure, according to a new report.

Among patients with cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores of 3.25 or higher, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma appeared to decline progressively each year up to 7 years after a sustained virologic response, although the rate remained above the 1% per year threshold that warrants screening.

“The majority of patients with hepatitis C have been treated and cured in the United States,” George Ioannou, MD, the senior study author and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “After hepatitis C eradication, these patients generally do very well from the liver standpoint, but the one thing they have to continue worrying about is development of liver cancer.”

Dr. Ioannou, who is also director of hepatology at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, noted that patients may be screened “indefinitely,” which places a burden on the patients and the health care system.

“We are still not sure to what extent the risk of liver cancer declines after hepatitis C eradication as more and more time accrues,” he said. “In those who had cirrhosis of the liver prior to hepatitis C cure, we are still not certain if there is a time point after hepatitis C cure when we can tell a patient that their risk of liver cancer is now very low and we no longer need to keep screening for liver cancer.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Risk calculations

In a previous study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues found that hepatocellular carcinoma risk declined during the first 4 years of follow-up after a sustained virologic response from direct-acting antiviral medications. But the follow-up time wasn’t long enough to determine whether the cancer risk continues to decline to levels low enough to forgo screening.

In this study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues extended the follow-up to 7 years. They were curious to see whether the cancer risk declines enough to drop the screening requirement, particularly as related to pretreatment cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 scores.

The research team analyzed electronic health records from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of Veterans Health Administration records developed specifically for research purposes.

The researchers included 29,033 patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system who had been infected with hepatitis C virus and were treated with direct-acting antivirals between January 2013 and December 2015. The patients had a sustained virologic response, which is defined as a viral load below the lower limit of detection at least 12 weeks after therapy completion.

The patients were followed for incident hepatocellular carcinoma until December 2021. The researchers then calculated the annual incidence during each year of follow-up after treatment.

About 96.6% of patients were men, and 52.2% were non-Hispanic White persons. The average age was 61 years. The most common conditions were alcohol use disorder (43.7%), substance use disorder (37.7%), and diabetes (28.9%).

Among the 7,533 patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, 948 (12.6%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 4.9 years. Among patients with FIB-4 scores of 3.25 or higher, the annual incidence decreased from 3.8% in the first year to 1.4% in the seventh year but remained substantial up to 7 years after sustained virologic response. Among patients with both cirrhosis and a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate ranged from 0.7% to 1.3% and didn’t change significantly over time.

Among the 21,500 patients without pretreatment cirrhosis, 541 (or 2.5%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 5.4 years. The incidence rate was significantly higher for patients with high FIB-4 scores. Among patients without cirrhosis but who had a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate remained stable but substantial (from 0.8% to 1.3%) for up to 7 years.

In a subgroup analysis that examined incidence according to changes in FIB-4 scores before and after treatment, the rate remained high among those with cirrhosis regardless of a score change. Among those without cirrhosis but who had a persistently high FIB-4 score, the incidence was high. In those without cirrhosis whose FIB-4 score dropped, the incidence was lower.

“The study demonstrates a clear decline in the risk of liver cancer over time after hepatitis C cure in the highest-risk group. This is very positive news for patients,” Dr. Ioannou said. “However, even with that decline in risk up to 7 years after eradication of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, the risk is still high enough to warrant liver cancer screening.”
 

Future concerns

For a follow-up study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues plan to adjust their analyses for other factors that influence the risk of liver cancer, such as age and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Other studies could increase the follow-up time beyond 7 years and assess how changes in diabetes, weight management, and alcohol use might affect liver cancer risk.

“With the availability of safe and effective direct-acting antiviral treatments, a growing number of patients have been or will be treated and cured of their hepatitis C infection,” Nicole Kim, MD, one of the lead authors and a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

“It is therefore important for us to develop a better understanding of how liver cancer risk might change after treatment, so we can improve the care we provide to this patient population,” she said.

The results require validation in nonveteran cohorts, the study authors write, as well as follow-up after the COVID-19 pandemic, when screening and diagnostic practices were restricted.

“Several studies have demonstrated that HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] surveillance is underused in clinical practice, including in patients after [sustained virologic response],” Amit Singal, MD, clinical chief of hepatology and medical director of the liver tumor program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Singal, who wasn’t involved with this study, is evaluating several intervention strategies to increase surveillance utilization. His research group is conducting a multicenter randomized trial using mailed outreach invitations and is also evaluating a biomarker, PLSec-AFP, to identify patients with the highest risks who may warrant more intensive surveillance strategies.

“We have recently validated the performance of this biomarker in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis, including some with cured hepatitis C virus infection,” he said.

The study was funded by an NIH/NCI grant and a VA CSR under Dr. Ioannou. The manuscript writing was supported by the NIH under Dr. Kim and co-author Philip Vutien. Dr. Singal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amazon is working with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop cancer vaccines in a new clinical trial.

The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.

“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”

In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.

A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.

The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.

The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.

More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.

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

Amazon is working with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop cancer vaccines in a new clinical trial.

The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.

“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”

In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.

A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.

The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.

The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.

More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.

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

Amazon is working with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop cancer vaccines in a new clinical trial.

The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.

“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”

In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.

A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.

The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.

The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.

More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.

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

A cost-saving, stepwise approach to treating diabetic macular edema was as effective and at least as safe as what’s been the standard approach, which jumps straight to the costlier treatment, in a head-to-head, multicenter, U.S. randomized trial of the two regimens that included 312 eyes in 270 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The findings validate a treatment regimen for diabetic macular edema that’s already common in U.S. practice based on requirements by many health insurance providers because of the money it saves.

The step-therapy approach studied involves starting off-label treatment with the relatively inexpensive agent bevacizumab (Avastin), followed by a switch to the much pricier aflibercept (Eylea) when patients don’t adequately respond, following a prespecified algorithm that applies four criteria to determine when patients need to change agents.

These new findings build on a 2016 study that compared aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab monotherapy and showed that after 2 years of treatment aflibercept produced clearly better outcomes.

The new trial findings “are particularly relevant given the increasing frequency of insurers mandating step therapy with bevacizumab before the use of other drugs” such as aflibercept, noted Chirag D. Jhaveri, MD, and colleagues in the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Opportunity for ‘substantial cost reductions’

Jhaveri, a retina surgeon in Austin, Texas, and associates note that, based on Medicare reimbursement rates of $1,830 for a single dose of aflibercept and $70 for one dose of bevacizumab, starting treatment with bevacizumab could produce “substantial cost reductions for the health care system.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. Step therapy that starts with bevacizumab would probably result in “substantial” cost savings, and the findings document “similar outcomes” from the two tested regimens based on improvements in visual acuity and changes in the thickness measurement of the central retina during the 2-year trial, write David C. Musch, PhD, and Emily Y. Chew, MD.

Dr. Musch, a professor and ophthalmology epidemiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Dr. Chew, director of the Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., also laud the “rigorous” study for its design and conduct that was “beyond reproach,” and for producing evidence that “applies well to clinical practice.”

The only potential drawback to the step-therapy approach, they write, is that people with diabetes often have “numerous coexisting conditions that make it more difficult for them to adhere to frequent follow-up visits,” a key element of the tested step-care protocol, which mandated follow-up visits every 4 weeks during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year.
 

312 eyes of 270 patients

The new trial, organized by the DRCR Retinal Network and the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla., ran at 54 U.S. sites from December 2017 to November 2019. The study randomized 158 eyes in 137 patients to aflibercept monotherapy, and 154 eyes in 133 patients to the step-care regimen (both eyes were treated in several patients in each group, with each eye receiving a different regimen). Participants were around 60 years old, 48% were women, and 95% had type 2 diabetes.

To be eligible for enrollment, patients had at least one eye with a best-corrected visual-acuity letter score of 24-69 on an Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better visual acuity), which corresponds to Snellen chart values of 20/320-20/50, readings that encompass most patients with diabetic macular edema, noted study authors Adam R. Glassman and Jennifer K. Sun, MD, in an interview.

“Very few patients with diabetic macular edema have vision due to this alone that is worse than 20/320, which meets criteria for legal blindness,” said Dr. Glassman, who is executive director of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, and Dr. Sun, who is chief of the center for clinical eye research and trials at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and chair of the DRCR Retinal Network.

The primary outcome was time-averaged change in visual-acuity letter score from baseline to 2 years, which improved by an average of 15.0 letters in the aflibercept monotherapy group and an average of 14.0 letters in the step-therapy group, an adjusted difference of 0.8 letters, which was not significant. An improvement from baseline of at least 15 letters occurred in 53% of the eyes in the aflibercept monotherapy group and in 58% of those who had step therapy, and 77% of eyes in both groups had improvements of at least 10 letters.  

Central retinal thickness dropped from baseline by an average of 192 mcm with aflibercept monotherapy and 198 mcm with step therapy. The average number of total treatments (by intravitreous injection) was 14.6 in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 16.1 in the step-therapy group. After the first 24 weeks of the study, 39% of eyes in the step-therapy group had switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept injections; after 1 year, 60% of eyes had switched; and by study end, after 2 years, 70% had changed.

The bevacizumab-first group also showed at least comparable if not better safety, with similar rates of prespecified ocular events in both groups, but with a significantly lower rate of serious systemic adverse events, which occurred in 52% of the eyes treated with aflibercept only and 36% of eyes that began treatment on bevacizumab. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 43% of patients who had two eyes treated as part of the trial.
 

‘Bevacizumab first was noninferior’

The team that designed the trial opted for a superiority design rather than a noninferiority trial and powered the study based on the presumption that aflibercept monotherapy would prove superior, said Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun. “We feel that the clinical interpretation of these results will be similar to the interpretation if we had conducted a noninferiority study, and we found that bevacizumab first was noninferior to aflibercept monotherapy,” they maintained in an interview.

Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun said they and their coauthors are now analyzing the results to try to find patient characteristics that could identify eyes most likely to respond to the bevacizumab-first approach. “It would be clinically valuable” to use the results to identify characteristics that could help guide clinicians’ treatment approach and enhance patient counseling, they said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, and Regenxbio. Dr. Glassman has reported receiving grants from Genentech and Regeneron. Dr. Sun has reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, KalVista, Optovue, and Physical Sciences, grants and travel support from Novartis and Novo Nordisk, travel support from Merck, writing support from Genentech, and equipment supplied by Adaptive Sensory and Boston Micromachines. Dr. Musch and Dr. Chew have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cost-saving, stepwise approach to treating diabetic macular edema was as effective and at least as safe as what’s been the standard approach, which jumps straight to the costlier treatment, in a head-to-head, multicenter, U.S. randomized trial of the two regimens that included 312 eyes in 270 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The findings validate a treatment regimen for diabetic macular edema that’s already common in U.S. practice based on requirements by many health insurance providers because of the money it saves.

The step-therapy approach studied involves starting off-label treatment with the relatively inexpensive agent bevacizumab (Avastin), followed by a switch to the much pricier aflibercept (Eylea) when patients don’t adequately respond, following a prespecified algorithm that applies four criteria to determine when patients need to change agents.

These new findings build on a 2016 study that compared aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab monotherapy and showed that after 2 years of treatment aflibercept produced clearly better outcomes.

The new trial findings “are particularly relevant given the increasing frequency of insurers mandating step therapy with bevacizumab before the use of other drugs” such as aflibercept, noted Chirag D. Jhaveri, MD, and colleagues in the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Opportunity for ‘substantial cost reductions’

Jhaveri, a retina surgeon in Austin, Texas, and associates note that, based on Medicare reimbursement rates of $1,830 for a single dose of aflibercept and $70 for one dose of bevacizumab, starting treatment with bevacizumab could produce “substantial cost reductions for the health care system.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. Step therapy that starts with bevacizumab would probably result in “substantial” cost savings, and the findings document “similar outcomes” from the two tested regimens based on improvements in visual acuity and changes in the thickness measurement of the central retina during the 2-year trial, write David C. Musch, PhD, and Emily Y. Chew, MD.

Dr. Musch, a professor and ophthalmology epidemiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Dr. Chew, director of the Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., also laud the “rigorous” study for its design and conduct that was “beyond reproach,” and for producing evidence that “applies well to clinical practice.”

The only potential drawback to the step-therapy approach, they write, is that people with diabetes often have “numerous coexisting conditions that make it more difficult for them to adhere to frequent follow-up visits,” a key element of the tested step-care protocol, which mandated follow-up visits every 4 weeks during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year.
 

312 eyes of 270 patients

The new trial, organized by the DRCR Retinal Network and the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla., ran at 54 U.S. sites from December 2017 to November 2019. The study randomized 158 eyes in 137 patients to aflibercept monotherapy, and 154 eyes in 133 patients to the step-care regimen (both eyes were treated in several patients in each group, with each eye receiving a different regimen). Participants were around 60 years old, 48% were women, and 95% had type 2 diabetes.

To be eligible for enrollment, patients had at least one eye with a best-corrected visual-acuity letter score of 24-69 on an Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better visual acuity), which corresponds to Snellen chart values of 20/320-20/50, readings that encompass most patients with diabetic macular edema, noted study authors Adam R. Glassman and Jennifer K. Sun, MD, in an interview.

“Very few patients with diabetic macular edema have vision due to this alone that is worse than 20/320, which meets criteria for legal blindness,” said Dr. Glassman, who is executive director of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, and Dr. Sun, who is chief of the center for clinical eye research and trials at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and chair of the DRCR Retinal Network.

The primary outcome was time-averaged change in visual-acuity letter score from baseline to 2 years, which improved by an average of 15.0 letters in the aflibercept monotherapy group and an average of 14.0 letters in the step-therapy group, an adjusted difference of 0.8 letters, which was not significant. An improvement from baseline of at least 15 letters occurred in 53% of the eyes in the aflibercept monotherapy group and in 58% of those who had step therapy, and 77% of eyes in both groups had improvements of at least 10 letters.  

Central retinal thickness dropped from baseline by an average of 192 mcm with aflibercept monotherapy and 198 mcm with step therapy. The average number of total treatments (by intravitreous injection) was 14.6 in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 16.1 in the step-therapy group. After the first 24 weeks of the study, 39% of eyes in the step-therapy group had switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept injections; after 1 year, 60% of eyes had switched; and by study end, after 2 years, 70% had changed.

The bevacizumab-first group also showed at least comparable if not better safety, with similar rates of prespecified ocular events in both groups, but with a significantly lower rate of serious systemic adverse events, which occurred in 52% of the eyes treated with aflibercept only and 36% of eyes that began treatment on bevacizumab. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 43% of patients who had two eyes treated as part of the trial.
 

‘Bevacizumab first was noninferior’

The team that designed the trial opted for a superiority design rather than a noninferiority trial and powered the study based on the presumption that aflibercept monotherapy would prove superior, said Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun. “We feel that the clinical interpretation of these results will be similar to the interpretation if we had conducted a noninferiority study, and we found that bevacizumab first was noninferior to aflibercept monotherapy,” they maintained in an interview.

Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun said they and their coauthors are now analyzing the results to try to find patient characteristics that could identify eyes most likely to respond to the bevacizumab-first approach. “It would be clinically valuable” to use the results to identify characteristics that could help guide clinicians’ treatment approach and enhance patient counseling, they said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, and Regenxbio. Dr. Glassman has reported receiving grants from Genentech and Regeneron. Dr. Sun has reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, KalVista, Optovue, and Physical Sciences, grants and travel support from Novartis and Novo Nordisk, travel support from Merck, writing support from Genentech, and equipment supplied by Adaptive Sensory and Boston Micromachines. Dr. Musch and Dr. Chew have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cost-saving, stepwise approach to treating diabetic macular edema was as effective and at least as safe as what’s been the standard approach, which jumps straight to the costlier treatment, in a head-to-head, multicenter, U.S. randomized trial of the two regimens that included 312 eyes in 270 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The findings validate a treatment regimen for diabetic macular edema that’s already common in U.S. practice based on requirements by many health insurance providers because of the money it saves.

The step-therapy approach studied involves starting off-label treatment with the relatively inexpensive agent bevacizumab (Avastin), followed by a switch to the much pricier aflibercept (Eylea) when patients don’t adequately respond, following a prespecified algorithm that applies four criteria to determine when patients need to change agents.

These new findings build on a 2016 study that compared aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab monotherapy and showed that after 2 years of treatment aflibercept produced clearly better outcomes.

The new trial findings “are particularly relevant given the increasing frequency of insurers mandating step therapy with bevacizumab before the use of other drugs” such as aflibercept, noted Chirag D. Jhaveri, MD, and colleagues in the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Opportunity for ‘substantial cost reductions’

Jhaveri, a retina surgeon in Austin, Texas, and associates note that, based on Medicare reimbursement rates of $1,830 for a single dose of aflibercept and $70 for one dose of bevacizumab, starting treatment with bevacizumab could produce “substantial cost reductions for the health care system.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. Step therapy that starts with bevacizumab would probably result in “substantial” cost savings, and the findings document “similar outcomes” from the two tested regimens based on improvements in visual acuity and changes in the thickness measurement of the central retina during the 2-year trial, write David C. Musch, PhD, and Emily Y. Chew, MD.

Dr. Musch, a professor and ophthalmology epidemiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Dr. Chew, director of the Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., also laud the “rigorous” study for its design and conduct that was “beyond reproach,” and for producing evidence that “applies well to clinical practice.”

The only potential drawback to the step-therapy approach, they write, is that people with diabetes often have “numerous coexisting conditions that make it more difficult for them to adhere to frequent follow-up visits,” a key element of the tested step-care protocol, which mandated follow-up visits every 4 weeks during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year.
 

312 eyes of 270 patients

The new trial, organized by the DRCR Retinal Network and the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla., ran at 54 U.S. sites from December 2017 to November 2019. The study randomized 158 eyes in 137 patients to aflibercept monotherapy, and 154 eyes in 133 patients to the step-care regimen (both eyes were treated in several patients in each group, with each eye receiving a different regimen). Participants were around 60 years old, 48% were women, and 95% had type 2 diabetes.

To be eligible for enrollment, patients had at least one eye with a best-corrected visual-acuity letter score of 24-69 on an Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better visual acuity), which corresponds to Snellen chart values of 20/320-20/50, readings that encompass most patients with diabetic macular edema, noted study authors Adam R. Glassman and Jennifer K. Sun, MD, in an interview.

“Very few patients with diabetic macular edema have vision due to this alone that is worse than 20/320, which meets criteria for legal blindness,” said Dr. Glassman, who is executive director of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, and Dr. Sun, who is chief of the center for clinical eye research and trials at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and chair of the DRCR Retinal Network.

The primary outcome was time-averaged change in visual-acuity letter score from baseline to 2 years, which improved by an average of 15.0 letters in the aflibercept monotherapy group and an average of 14.0 letters in the step-therapy group, an adjusted difference of 0.8 letters, which was not significant. An improvement from baseline of at least 15 letters occurred in 53% of the eyes in the aflibercept monotherapy group and in 58% of those who had step therapy, and 77% of eyes in both groups had improvements of at least 10 letters.  

Central retinal thickness dropped from baseline by an average of 192 mcm with aflibercept monotherapy and 198 mcm with step therapy. The average number of total treatments (by intravitreous injection) was 14.6 in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 16.1 in the step-therapy group. After the first 24 weeks of the study, 39% of eyes in the step-therapy group had switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept injections; after 1 year, 60% of eyes had switched; and by study end, after 2 years, 70% had changed.

The bevacizumab-first group also showed at least comparable if not better safety, with similar rates of prespecified ocular events in both groups, but with a significantly lower rate of serious systemic adverse events, which occurred in 52% of the eyes treated with aflibercept only and 36% of eyes that began treatment on bevacizumab. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 43% of patients who had two eyes treated as part of the trial.
 

‘Bevacizumab first was noninferior’

The team that designed the trial opted for a superiority design rather than a noninferiority trial and powered the study based on the presumption that aflibercept monotherapy would prove superior, said Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun. “We feel that the clinical interpretation of these results will be similar to the interpretation if we had conducted a noninferiority study, and we found that bevacizumab first was noninferior to aflibercept monotherapy,” they maintained in an interview.

Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun said they and their coauthors are now analyzing the results to try to find patient characteristics that could identify eyes most likely to respond to the bevacizumab-first approach. “It would be clinically valuable” to use the results to identify characteristics that could help guide clinicians’ treatment approach and enhance patient counseling, they said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, and Regenxbio. Dr. Glassman has reported receiving grants from Genentech and Regeneron. Dr. Sun has reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, KalVista, Optovue, and Physical Sciences, grants and travel support from Novartis and Novo Nordisk, travel support from Merck, writing support from Genentech, and equipment supplied by Adaptive Sensory and Boston Micromachines. Dr. Musch and Dr. Chew have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The notion that people get ‘hangry’ – irritable and short-tempered when they’re hungry – is such an established part of modern folklore that the word has even been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Although experimental studies in the past have shown that low blood glucose levels increase impulsivity, anger, and aggression, there has been little solid evidence that this translates to real-life settings.

Now new research has confirmed that the phenomenon does really exist in everyday life. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, is the first to investigate how hunger affects people’s emotions on a day-to-day level. Lead author Viren Swami, professor of social psychology at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, England, said: “Many of us are aware that being hungry can influence our emotions, but surprisingly little scientific research has focused on being ‘hangry’.”

He and coauthors from Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Krems an der Donau, Austria, recruited 64 participants from Central Europe who completed a 21-day experience sampling phase, in which they were prompted to report their feelings on a smartphone app five times a day. At each prompt, they reported their levels of hunger, anger, irritability, pleasure, and arousal on a visual analog scale.

Participants were on average 29.9 years old (range = 18-60), predominantly (81.3%) women, and had a mean body mass index of 23.8 kg/m² (range 15.8-36.5 kg/m²).

Anger was rated on a 5-point scale but the team explained that the effects of hunger are unlikely to be unique to anger per se, so they also asked about experiences of irritability and, in order to obtain a more holistic view of emotionality, also about pleasure and arousal, as indexed using Russell’s affect grid.

They also asked about eating behaviors over the previous 3 weeks, including frequency of main meals, snacking behavior, healthy eating, feeling hungry, and sense of satiety, and about dietary behaviors including restrictive eating, emotionally induced eating, and externally determined eating behavior.

Analysis of the resulting total of 9,142 responses showed that higher levels of self-reported hunger were associated with greater feelings of anger and irritability, and with lower levels of pleasure. These findings remained significant after accounting for participants’ sex, age, body mass index, dietary behaviors, and trait anger. However, associations with arousal were not significant.

The authors commented that the use of the app allowed data collection to take place in subjects’ everyday environments, such as their workplace and at home. “These results provide evidence that everyday levels of hunger are associated with negative emotionality and supports the notion of being ‘hangry.’ ”
 

‘Substantial’ effects

“The effects were substantial,” the team said, “even after taking into account demographic factors” such as age and sex, body mass index, dietary behavior, and individual personality traits. Hunger was associated with 37% of the variance in irritability, 34% of the variance in anger, and 38% of the variance in pleasure recorded by the participants.

The research also showed that the negative emotions – irritability, anger, and unpleasantness – were caused by both day-to-day fluctuations in hunger and residual levels of hunger measured by averages over the 3-week period.

The authors said their findings “suggest that the experience of being hangry is real, insofar as hunger was associated with greater anger and irritability, and lower pleasure, in our sample over a period of 3 weeks.

“These results may have important implications for understanding everyday experiences of emotions, and may also assist practitioners to more effectively ensure productive individual behaviors and interpersonal relationships (for example, by ensuring that no one goes hungry).”

Although the majority of participants (55%) said they paid attention to hunger pangs, only 23% said that they knew when they were full and then stopped eating, whereas 63% said they could tell when they were full but sometimes continued to eat. Few (4.7%) people said they could not tell when they were full and therefore oriented their eating based on the size of the meal, but 9% described frequent overeating because of not feeling satiated, and 13% stated they ate when they were stressed, upset, angry, or bored.

Professor Swami said: “Ours is the first study to examine being ‘hangry’ outside of a lab. By following people in their day-to-day lives, we found that hunger was related to levels of anger, irritability, and pleasure.

“Although our study doesn’t present ways to mitigate negative hunger-induced emotions, research suggests that being able to label an emotion can help people to regulate it, such as by recognizing that we feel angry simply because we are hungry. Therefore, greater awareness of being ‘hangry’ could reduce the likelihood that hunger results in negative emotions and behaviors in individuals.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The notion that people get ‘hangry’ – irritable and short-tempered when they’re hungry – is such an established part of modern folklore that the word has even been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Although experimental studies in the past have shown that low blood glucose levels increase impulsivity, anger, and aggression, there has been little solid evidence that this translates to real-life settings.

Now new research has confirmed that the phenomenon does really exist in everyday life. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, is the first to investigate how hunger affects people’s emotions on a day-to-day level. Lead author Viren Swami, professor of social psychology at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, England, said: “Many of us are aware that being hungry can influence our emotions, but surprisingly little scientific research has focused on being ‘hangry’.”

He and coauthors from Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Krems an der Donau, Austria, recruited 64 participants from Central Europe who completed a 21-day experience sampling phase, in which they were prompted to report their feelings on a smartphone app five times a day. At each prompt, they reported their levels of hunger, anger, irritability, pleasure, and arousal on a visual analog scale.

Participants were on average 29.9 years old (range = 18-60), predominantly (81.3%) women, and had a mean body mass index of 23.8 kg/m² (range 15.8-36.5 kg/m²).

Anger was rated on a 5-point scale but the team explained that the effects of hunger are unlikely to be unique to anger per se, so they also asked about experiences of irritability and, in order to obtain a more holistic view of emotionality, also about pleasure and arousal, as indexed using Russell’s affect grid.

They also asked about eating behaviors over the previous 3 weeks, including frequency of main meals, snacking behavior, healthy eating, feeling hungry, and sense of satiety, and about dietary behaviors including restrictive eating, emotionally induced eating, and externally determined eating behavior.

Analysis of the resulting total of 9,142 responses showed that higher levels of self-reported hunger were associated with greater feelings of anger and irritability, and with lower levels of pleasure. These findings remained significant after accounting for participants’ sex, age, body mass index, dietary behaviors, and trait anger. However, associations with arousal were not significant.

The authors commented that the use of the app allowed data collection to take place in subjects’ everyday environments, such as their workplace and at home. “These results provide evidence that everyday levels of hunger are associated with negative emotionality and supports the notion of being ‘hangry.’ ”
 

‘Substantial’ effects

“The effects were substantial,” the team said, “even after taking into account demographic factors” such as age and sex, body mass index, dietary behavior, and individual personality traits. Hunger was associated with 37% of the variance in irritability, 34% of the variance in anger, and 38% of the variance in pleasure recorded by the participants.

The research also showed that the negative emotions – irritability, anger, and unpleasantness – were caused by both day-to-day fluctuations in hunger and residual levels of hunger measured by averages over the 3-week period.

The authors said their findings “suggest that the experience of being hangry is real, insofar as hunger was associated with greater anger and irritability, and lower pleasure, in our sample over a period of 3 weeks.

“These results may have important implications for understanding everyday experiences of emotions, and may also assist practitioners to more effectively ensure productive individual behaviors and interpersonal relationships (for example, by ensuring that no one goes hungry).”

Although the majority of participants (55%) said they paid attention to hunger pangs, only 23% said that they knew when they were full and then stopped eating, whereas 63% said they could tell when they were full but sometimes continued to eat. Few (4.7%) people said they could not tell when they were full and therefore oriented their eating based on the size of the meal, but 9% described frequent overeating because of not feeling satiated, and 13% stated they ate when they were stressed, upset, angry, or bored.

Professor Swami said: “Ours is the first study to examine being ‘hangry’ outside of a lab. By following people in their day-to-day lives, we found that hunger was related to levels of anger, irritability, and pleasure.

“Although our study doesn’t present ways to mitigate negative hunger-induced emotions, research suggests that being able to label an emotion can help people to regulate it, such as by recognizing that we feel angry simply because we are hungry. Therefore, greater awareness of being ‘hangry’ could reduce the likelihood that hunger results in negative emotions and behaviors in individuals.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The notion that people get ‘hangry’ – irritable and short-tempered when they’re hungry – is such an established part of modern folklore that the word has even been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Although experimental studies in the past have shown that low blood glucose levels increase impulsivity, anger, and aggression, there has been little solid evidence that this translates to real-life settings.

Now new research has confirmed that the phenomenon does really exist in everyday life. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, is the first to investigate how hunger affects people’s emotions on a day-to-day level. Lead author Viren Swami, professor of social psychology at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, England, said: “Many of us are aware that being hungry can influence our emotions, but surprisingly little scientific research has focused on being ‘hangry’.”

He and coauthors from Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Krems an der Donau, Austria, recruited 64 participants from Central Europe who completed a 21-day experience sampling phase, in which they were prompted to report their feelings on a smartphone app five times a day. At each prompt, they reported their levels of hunger, anger, irritability, pleasure, and arousal on a visual analog scale.

Participants were on average 29.9 years old (range = 18-60), predominantly (81.3%) women, and had a mean body mass index of 23.8 kg/m² (range 15.8-36.5 kg/m²).

Anger was rated on a 5-point scale but the team explained that the effects of hunger are unlikely to be unique to anger per se, so they also asked about experiences of irritability and, in order to obtain a more holistic view of emotionality, also about pleasure and arousal, as indexed using Russell’s affect grid.

They also asked about eating behaviors over the previous 3 weeks, including frequency of main meals, snacking behavior, healthy eating, feeling hungry, and sense of satiety, and about dietary behaviors including restrictive eating, emotionally induced eating, and externally determined eating behavior.

Analysis of the resulting total of 9,142 responses showed that higher levels of self-reported hunger were associated with greater feelings of anger and irritability, and with lower levels of pleasure. These findings remained significant after accounting for participants’ sex, age, body mass index, dietary behaviors, and trait anger. However, associations with arousal were not significant.

The authors commented that the use of the app allowed data collection to take place in subjects’ everyday environments, such as their workplace and at home. “These results provide evidence that everyday levels of hunger are associated with negative emotionality and supports the notion of being ‘hangry.’ ”
 

‘Substantial’ effects

“The effects were substantial,” the team said, “even after taking into account demographic factors” such as age and sex, body mass index, dietary behavior, and individual personality traits. Hunger was associated with 37% of the variance in irritability, 34% of the variance in anger, and 38% of the variance in pleasure recorded by the participants.

The research also showed that the negative emotions – irritability, anger, and unpleasantness – were caused by both day-to-day fluctuations in hunger and residual levels of hunger measured by averages over the 3-week period.

The authors said their findings “suggest that the experience of being hangry is real, insofar as hunger was associated with greater anger and irritability, and lower pleasure, in our sample over a period of 3 weeks.

“These results may have important implications for understanding everyday experiences of emotions, and may also assist practitioners to more effectively ensure productive individual behaviors and interpersonal relationships (for example, by ensuring that no one goes hungry).”

Although the majority of participants (55%) said they paid attention to hunger pangs, only 23% said that they knew when they were full and then stopped eating, whereas 63% said they could tell when they were full but sometimes continued to eat. Few (4.7%) people said they could not tell when they were full and therefore oriented their eating based on the size of the meal, but 9% described frequent overeating because of not feeling satiated, and 13% stated they ate when they were stressed, upset, angry, or bored.

Professor Swami said: “Ours is the first study to examine being ‘hangry’ outside of a lab. By following people in their day-to-day lives, we found that hunger was related to levels of anger, irritability, and pleasure.

“Although our study doesn’t present ways to mitigate negative hunger-induced emotions, research suggests that being able to label an emotion can help people to regulate it, such as by recognizing that we feel angry simply because we are hungry. Therefore, greater awareness of being ‘hangry’ could reduce the likelihood that hunger results in negative emotions and behaviors in individuals.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.

A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.

The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.

The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.

They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).

“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.

The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.

Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.

Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
 

No changes found to fertility

The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.

The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.

“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.

However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.

This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.

For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”

Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.

Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.

People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.

People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
 

Breakthrough bleeding

For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.

Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.

More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.

The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.

The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.

The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.

Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.

Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.

She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”

The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.

Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.

Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.

“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.

“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”

Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.

Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.

“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.

She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.

“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”

The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.

Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.

A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.

The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.

The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.

They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).

“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.

The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.

Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.

Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
 

No changes found to fertility

The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.

The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.

“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.

However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.

This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.

For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”

Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.

Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.

People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.

People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
 

Breakthrough bleeding

For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.

Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.

More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.

The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.

The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.

The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.

Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.

Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.

She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”

The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.

Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.

Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.

“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.

“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”

Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.

Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.

“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.

She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.

“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”

The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.

Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.

A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.

The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.

The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.

They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).

“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.

The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.

Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.

Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
 

No changes found to fertility

The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.

The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.

“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.

However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.

This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.

For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”

Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.

Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.

People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.

People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
 

Breakthrough bleeding

For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.

Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.

More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.

The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.

The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.

The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.

Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.

Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.

She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”

The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.

Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.

Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.

“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.

“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”

Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.

Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.

“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.

She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.

“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”

The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Nearly two-thirds of pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) met criteria for obesity at the time of their diagnosis, and 36% had acne, in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In addition, 44% presented with scarring, which suggests that HS may be underdiagnosed in this patient population. Those are the key findings from the study, a single-center retrospective chart review presented by Stephanie Sanchez during a poster session at the meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There is limited research on HS within the pediatric population,” said Ms. Sanchez, a fourth-year medical student at Boston University. “It’s not very well defined or characterized.” The “unusually high number of pediatric patients with HS” at Boston Medical Center provided “a unique opportunity to study this topic.”

Working with her mentor, Lisa Shen, MD, associate medical director of pediatric dermatology at Boston University, Ms. Sanchez and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 303 patients aged 4-18 years who were diagnosed with HS at Boston Medical Center from 2012 to 2021. Boston Medical Center is the largest safety net hospital in New England. All data points and outcome measures were collected within 6 months of the patient’s HS diagnosis date.

Of the 303 patients with HS, 84% were female and 16% were male. Complete information about race was available in 286 patients. Of these, 65% were Black/African American, 11% were White, and the rest were from other racial groups. The mean age at symptom onset was 13 years, while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years, and the mean delay to diagnosis was 2 years. A family history of HS was reported in 36% of patients.

Elsevier

The most common clinical features in these HS patients were pain/tenderness (90%), pustules/papules (65%), discharge/drainage (62%), and deep-seated nodules (51%). Scarring was present in 44% of patients at the time of diagnosis. The three most common sites of involvement were the axillary area (79%), the pubic area (36%), and the inguinal folds/inner thighs (34%).

Obesity was the most common comorbidity at the time of diagnosis, with 64% of patients affected. The next most common comorbidities were acne vulgaris (36%), acanthosis nigricans (25%), depression (18%), being overweight (17%), polycystic ovary syndrome (16%) and anxiety (13%). None had type 1 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Referring to the large population of underserved minority patients at Boston Medical Center, Dr. Shen noted, “we have to make sure not to underestimate the prevalence of obesity in this population as they get older. We need to start from a younger age to incorporate multidisciplinary care such as weight management, nutrition, and working with our pediatric surgery colleagues in trying to tackle [HS] because there is data to suggest that the earlier we intervene, the better outcomes they have. That makes sense.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that the study “highlights the impressive and concerning gap and delays in diagnosis, not too dissimilar to what the literature shows in adult HS patients, which unfortunately has tremendous ramifications, both physically and emotionally/psychosocially.”

While this single-center study identified potential risk factors, such as obesity and self-identifying as Black, he said, “it is important to note that this condition does not discriminate and therefore it is important not to miss the cases that don’t follow the textbook nor stigmatize this condition as one that only impacts certain demographics.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is a speaker for companies including, Regeneron, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

INDIANAPOLIS – Nearly two-thirds of pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) met criteria for obesity at the time of their diagnosis, and 36% had acne, in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In addition, 44% presented with scarring, which suggests that HS may be underdiagnosed in this patient population. Those are the key findings from the study, a single-center retrospective chart review presented by Stephanie Sanchez during a poster session at the meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There is limited research on HS within the pediatric population,” said Ms. Sanchez, a fourth-year medical student at Boston University. “It’s not very well defined or characterized.” The “unusually high number of pediatric patients with HS” at Boston Medical Center provided “a unique opportunity to study this topic.”

Working with her mentor, Lisa Shen, MD, associate medical director of pediatric dermatology at Boston University, Ms. Sanchez and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 303 patients aged 4-18 years who were diagnosed with HS at Boston Medical Center from 2012 to 2021. Boston Medical Center is the largest safety net hospital in New England. All data points and outcome measures were collected within 6 months of the patient’s HS diagnosis date.

Of the 303 patients with HS, 84% were female and 16% were male. Complete information about race was available in 286 patients. Of these, 65% were Black/African American, 11% were White, and the rest were from other racial groups. The mean age at symptom onset was 13 years, while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years, and the mean delay to diagnosis was 2 years. A family history of HS was reported in 36% of patients.

Elsevier

The most common clinical features in these HS patients were pain/tenderness (90%), pustules/papules (65%), discharge/drainage (62%), and deep-seated nodules (51%). Scarring was present in 44% of patients at the time of diagnosis. The three most common sites of involvement were the axillary area (79%), the pubic area (36%), and the inguinal folds/inner thighs (34%).

Obesity was the most common comorbidity at the time of diagnosis, with 64% of patients affected. The next most common comorbidities were acne vulgaris (36%), acanthosis nigricans (25%), depression (18%), being overweight (17%), polycystic ovary syndrome (16%) and anxiety (13%). None had type 1 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Referring to the large population of underserved minority patients at Boston Medical Center, Dr. Shen noted, “we have to make sure not to underestimate the prevalence of obesity in this population as they get older. We need to start from a younger age to incorporate multidisciplinary care such as weight management, nutrition, and working with our pediatric surgery colleagues in trying to tackle [HS] because there is data to suggest that the earlier we intervene, the better outcomes they have. That makes sense.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that the study “highlights the impressive and concerning gap and delays in diagnosis, not too dissimilar to what the literature shows in adult HS patients, which unfortunately has tremendous ramifications, both physically and emotionally/psychosocially.”

While this single-center study identified potential risk factors, such as obesity and self-identifying as Black, he said, “it is important to note that this condition does not discriminate and therefore it is important not to miss the cases that don’t follow the textbook nor stigmatize this condition as one that only impacts certain demographics.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is a speaker for companies including, Regeneron, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

INDIANAPOLIS – Nearly two-thirds of pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) met criteria for obesity at the time of their diagnosis, and 36% had acne, in a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In addition, 44% presented with scarring, which suggests that HS may be underdiagnosed in this patient population. Those are the key findings from the study, a single-center retrospective chart review presented by Stephanie Sanchez during a poster session at the meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There is limited research on HS within the pediatric population,” said Ms. Sanchez, a fourth-year medical student at Boston University. “It’s not very well defined or characterized.” The “unusually high number of pediatric patients with HS” at Boston Medical Center provided “a unique opportunity to study this topic.”

Working with her mentor, Lisa Shen, MD, associate medical director of pediatric dermatology at Boston University, Ms. Sanchez and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 303 patients aged 4-18 years who were diagnosed with HS at Boston Medical Center from 2012 to 2021. Boston Medical Center is the largest safety net hospital in New England. All data points and outcome measures were collected within 6 months of the patient’s HS diagnosis date.

Of the 303 patients with HS, 84% were female and 16% were male. Complete information about race was available in 286 patients. Of these, 65% were Black/African American, 11% were White, and the rest were from other racial groups. The mean age at symptom onset was 13 years, while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years, and the mean delay to diagnosis was 2 years. A family history of HS was reported in 36% of patients.

Elsevier

The most common clinical features in these HS patients were pain/tenderness (90%), pustules/papules (65%), discharge/drainage (62%), and deep-seated nodules (51%). Scarring was present in 44% of patients at the time of diagnosis. The three most common sites of involvement were the axillary area (79%), the pubic area (36%), and the inguinal folds/inner thighs (34%).

Obesity was the most common comorbidity at the time of diagnosis, with 64% of patients affected. The next most common comorbidities were acne vulgaris (36%), acanthosis nigricans (25%), depression (18%), being overweight (17%), polycystic ovary syndrome (16%) and anxiety (13%). None had type 1 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Referring to the large population of underserved minority patients at Boston Medical Center, Dr. Shen noted, “we have to make sure not to underestimate the prevalence of obesity in this population as they get older. We need to start from a younger age to incorporate multidisciplinary care such as weight management, nutrition, and working with our pediatric surgery colleagues in trying to tackle [HS] because there is data to suggest that the earlier we intervene, the better outcomes they have. That makes sense.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that the study “highlights the impressive and concerning gap and delays in diagnosis, not too dissimilar to what the literature shows in adult HS patients, which unfortunately has tremendous ramifications, both physically and emotionally/psychosocially.”

While this single-center study identified potential risk factors, such as obesity and self-identifying as Black, he said, “it is important to note that this condition does not discriminate and therefore it is important not to miss the cases that don’t follow the textbook nor stigmatize this condition as one that only impacts certain demographics.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is a speaker for companies including, Regeneron, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans could soon have a fourth option for COVID-19 vaccines after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to a two-shot vaccine from Novavax on July 13.

The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.

The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.

“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”

The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.

Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.

The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.

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

Americans could soon have a fourth option for COVID-19 vaccines after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to a two-shot vaccine from Novavax on July 13.

The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.

The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.

“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”

The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.

Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.

The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.

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

Americans could soon have a fourth option for COVID-19 vaccines after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to a two-shot vaccine from Novavax on July 13.

The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.

The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.

“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”

The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.

Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.

The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.

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