Federal Practitioner

A novel DNA test system that assesses a person’s genetic predisposition for certain cancers – the first of its kind granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration – may become a valuable new public health tool.

The Common Hereditary Cancers Panel (Invitae) was approved late September following FDA review under the De Novo process, a regulatory pathway for new types of low- to moderate-risk devices.

Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

Validation of the prescription-only in vitro test was based on assessments of more than 9,000 clinical samples, which demonstrated accuracy of at least 99% for all tested variants in 47 genes known to be associated with an increased risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic as well as melanoma.
 

How the test system works

Next-generation sequencing assesses germline human genomic DNA extracted from a single blood sample collected at the point of care, such as a doctor’s office, and is sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Specifically, the system aims to detect substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in the panel of 47 targeted genes.

This technology “can provide an important public health tool that offers individuals more information about their health, including possible predisposition for certain cancers,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological health, explained in an FDA press release announcing the marketing authorization.

Clinical interpretation is based on evidence from the published literature, prediction programs, public databases, and Invitae’s own variants database, the FDA statement explained.
 

What the test can do

Not only can the Common Hereditary Cancer Panel identify genetic variants that increase an individual’s risk of certain cancers, the panel can also help identify potential cancer-related hereditary variants in patients already diagnosed with cancer.

The most clinically significant genes the test system can detect include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have known associations with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; Lynch syndrome–associated genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM; CDH1, which is largely associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer; and STK11, which is associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

“Patients should speak with a health care professional, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss any personal/family history of cancer, as such information can be helpful in interpreting test results,” the FDA advised.
 

What the test can’t do

The test is not intended to identify or evaluate all known genes tied to a person’s potential predisposition for cancer. The test is also not intended for cancer screening or prenatal testing. 

For these reasons, and because genetics are not the only factor associated with developing cancer, negative test results could lead to misunderstanding among some patients about their cancer risk.

“Results are intended to be interpreted within the context of additional laboratory results, family history, and clinical findings,” the company wrote in a statement.
 

Test safety

Risks associated with the test include the possibility of false positive and false negative results and the potential for people to misunderstand what the results mean about their risk for cancer.

A false sense of assurance after a false negative result might, for instance, lead patients to forgo recommended surveillance or clinical management, whereas false positive test results could lead to inappropriate decision-making and undesirable consequences.

“These risks are mitigated by the analytical performance validation, clinical validation, and appropriate labeling of this test,” the agency explained.

Along with the De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls to define requirements for these tests. For instance, accuracy must be 99% or higher for positive agreement and at least 99.9% for negative agreement with a validated, independent method.
 

Public health implications

The information gleaned from this tool can “help guide physicians to provide appropriate monitoring and potential therapy, based on discovered variants,” Dr. Shuren said.

The marketing authorization of Invitae’s test established a new regulatory category, which “means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process,” the FDA explained.

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

A novel DNA test system that assesses a person’s genetic predisposition for certain cancers – the first of its kind granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration – may become a valuable new public health tool.

The Common Hereditary Cancers Panel (Invitae) was approved late September following FDA review under the De Novo process, a regulatory pathway for new types of low- to moderate-risk devices.

Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

Validation of the prescription-only in vitro test was based on assessments of more than 9,000 clinical samples, which demonstrated accuracy of at least 99% for all tested variants in 47 genes known to be associated with an increased risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic as well as melanoma.
 

How the test system works

Next-generation sequencing assesses germline human genomic DNA extracted from a single blood sample collected at the point of care, such as a doctor’s office, and is sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Specifically, the system aims to detect substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in the panel of 47 targeted genes.

This technology “can provide an important public health tool that offers individuals more information about their health, including possible predisposition for certain cancers,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological health, explained in an FDA press release announcing the marketing authorization.

Clinical interpretation is based on evidence from the published literature, prediction programs, public databases, and Invitae’s own variants database, the FDA statement explained.
 

What the test can do

Not only can the Common Hereditary Cancer Panel identify genetic variants that increase an individual’s risk of certain cancers, the panel can also help identify potential cancer-related hereditary variants in patients already diagnosed with cancer.

The most clinically significant genes the test system can detect include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have known associations with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; Lynch syndrome–associated genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM; CDH1, which is largely associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer; and STK11, which is associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

“Patients should speak with a health care professional, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss any personal/family history of cancer, as such information can be helpful in interpreting test results,” the FDA advised.
 

What the test can’t do

The test is not intended to identify or evaluate all known genes tied to a person’s potential predisposition for cancer. The test is also not intended for cancer screening or prenatal testing. 

For these reasons, and because genetics are not the only factor associated with developing cancer, negative test results could lead to misunderstanding among some patients about their cancer risk.

“Results are intended to be interpreted within the context of additional laboratory results, family history, and clinical findings,” the company wrote in a statement.
 

Test safety

Risks associated with the test include the possibility of false positive and false negative results and the potential for people to misunderstand what the results mean about their risk for cancer.

A false sense of assurance after a false negative result might, for instance, lead patients to forgo recommended surveillance or clinical management, whereas false positive test results could lead to inappropriate decision-making and undesirable consequences.

“These risks are mitigated by the analytical performance validation, clinical validation, and appropriate labeling of this test,” the agency explained.

Along with the De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls to define requirements for these tests. For instance, accuracy must be 99% or higher for positive agreement and at least 99.9% for negative agreement with a validated, independent method.
 

Public health implications

The information gleaned from this tool can “help guide physicians to provide appropriate monitoring and potential therapy, based on discovered variants,” Dr. Shuren said.

The marketing authorization of Invitae’s test established a new regulatory category, which “means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process,” the FDA explained.

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

A novel DNA test system that assesses a person’s genetic predisposition for certain cancers – the first of its kind granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration – may become a valuable new public health tool.

The Common Hereditary Cancers Panel (Invitae) was approved late September following FDA review under the De Novo process, a regulatory pathway for new types of low- to moderate-risk devices.

Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

Validation of the prescription-only in vitro test was based on assessments of more than 9,000 clinical samples, which demonstrated accuracy of at least 99% for all tested variants in 47 genes known to be associated with an increased risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic as well as melanoma.
 

How the test system works

Next-generation sequencing assesses germline human genomic DNA extracted from a single blood sample collected at the point of care, such as a doctor’s office, and is sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Specifically, the system aims to detect substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in the panel of 47 targeted genes.

This technology “can provide an important public health tool that offers individuals more information about their health, including possible predisposition for certain cancers,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological health, explained in an FDA press release announcing the marketing authorization.

Clinical interpretation is based on evidence from the published literature, prediction programs, public databases, and Invitae’s own variants database, the FDA statement explained.
 

What the test can do

Not only can the Common Hereditary Cancer Panel identify genetic variants that increase an individual’s risk of certain cancers, the panel can also help identify potential cancer-related hereditary variants in patients already diagnosed with cancer.

The most clinically significant genes the test system can detect include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have known associations with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; Lynch syndrome–associated genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM; CDH1, which is largely associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer; and STK11, which is associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

“Patients should speak with a health care professional, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss any personal/family history of cancer, as such information can be helpful in interpreting test results,” the FDA advised.
 

What the test can’t do

The test is not intended to identify or evaluate all known genes tied to a person’s potential predisposition for cancer. The test is also not intended for cancer screening or prenatal testing. 

For these reasons, and because genetics are not the only factor associated with developing cancer, negative test results could lead to misunderstanding among some patients about their cancer risk.

“Results are intended to be interpreted within the context of additional laboratory results, family history, and clinical findings,” the company wrote in a statement.
 

Test safety

Risks associated with the test include the possibility of false positive and false negative results and the potential for people to misunderstand what the results mean about their risk for cancer.

A false sense of assurance after a false negative result might, for instance, lead patients to forgo recommended surveillance or clinical management, whereas false positive test results could lead to inappropriate decision-making and undesirable consequences.

“These risks are mitigated by the analytical performance validation, clinical validation, and appropriate labeling of this test,” the agency explained.

Along with the De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls to define requirements for these tests. For instance, accuracy must be 99% or higher for positive agreement and at least 99.9% for negative agreement with a validated, independent method.
 

Public health implications

The information gleaned from this tool can “help guide physicians to provide appropriate monitoring and potential therapy, based on discovered variants,” Dr. Shuren said.

The marketing authorization of Invitae’s test established a new regulatory category, which “means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process,” the FDA explained.

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

Each additional decade of type 2 diabetes shortens lives by about 3.5 years, compared with not having diabetes, researchers estimate on the basis of data from studies conducted in 19 high-income countries.

They estimated that, among 50-year-olds, life expectancy of those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at age 30 is 14 years shorter than that of their peers without diabetes. Among those diagnosed at age 50, life expectancy is 6 years shorter.

The study was recently published in The Lancet – Diabetes and Endocrinology.

The team analyzed data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration and the UK Biobank. The data were from 97 long-term, prospective cohorts and involved 1.5 million participants who were followed for 23.1 million person-years.

“The strongest associations with earlier age at diagnosis of diabetes were for vascular (for example, myocardial infarction and stroke) and other causes of death – mainly respiratory, neurological, and infectious diseases and external causes,” they reported.

Their findings are consistent with previous studies that suggested that younger individuals who develop type 2 diabetes might have higher body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, and lipid levels and that they might experience faster deterioration in glycemic control than individuals who develop diabetes later, potentially leading to premature mortality.

Asked to comment, Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this study, said: “We’ve long known that diabetes reduces life expectancy, and the younger you get it the more years you lose. However, this study was from a broader and larger population base than prior studies.

“In this study, the major reason for death was vascular disease, and undertreatment of cardiovascular risk factors may have occurred in the younger individuals. We also don’t know about glucose control.

“I personally think the findings show that we should treat cardiovascular risk factors more aggressively in people diagnosed with [type 2] diabetes in their 30s and 40s,” urged Dr. Peters.
 

High priority should be given to prevention globally

“Type 2 diabetes used to be seen as a disease that affected older adults, but we’re increasingly seeing people diagnosed earlier in life,” senior author Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, from the University of Cambridge (England), explained in a press release. “As we’ve shown, this means they are at risk of a much shorter life expectancy than they would otherwise have.”

The findings suggest that “high priority should be given to developing and implementing interventions that prevent or delay the onset of [type 2 diabetes], especially as its prevalence among younger age groups is increasing globally,” the study authors wrote.

The results “support the idea that the younger an individual is when they develop type 2 diabetes, the more damage their body accumulates from its impaired metabolism,” added co–senior author Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow,

Dr. Peters agreed: “People who develop type 2 diabetes at a younger age might have a different, potentially more aggressive type of type 2 diabetes and perhaps need treatment targets that are lower than people who develop type 2 diabetes when they are older.”

“The findings ... suggest that early detection of diabetes by screening followed by intensive glucose management could help prevent long-term complications from the condition,” Dr. Sattar said.

Dr. Peters added: “An issue for some is pregnancy. ... Many of the medications taken for management of CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factors are contraindicated in pregnancy (as are many of the medications [for treating type 2 diabetes]).

“We need to be careful to risk reduce but take care of the ‘whole person,’ and if of childbearing age, consider the safest approaches to healthy management,” she emphasized.
 

Study results: Type 2 diabetes diagnosed at age 30, 40, and 50

Previous studies estimated that adults with type 2 diabetes die 6 years earlier on average in comparison with their counterparts who do not have diabetes, but it was not known how diabetes duration affects life span.

To investigate this, the team analyzed individual records from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration and the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other outcomes were deaths from CVD, cancer, and other causes.

Over a median follow-up of 12.5 years, there were 246,670 deaths: 84,443 from cardiovascular causes, 150, 972 from noncardiovascular causes, and 11,255 from unknown/ill-defined causes.

Compared with participants who did not have a history of type 2 diabetes, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, adjusted for age and sex, were 2.69 for participants diagnosed at age 30-39, 2.26 for those diagnosed aged 40-49, 1.84 aged 50-59, 1.57 for those aged 60-69, and 1.39 for those diagnosed 70 and older.

These hazard ratios were similar after adjusting for BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol, but they were substantially attenuated after further adjusting for fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c level.

Similar patterns were observed for cause-specific mortality.

“Every decade of earlier diagnosis of diabetes was associated with about 3-4 years of lower life expectancy, highlighting the need to develop and implement interventions that prevent or delay the onset of diabetes and to intensify the treatment of risk factors among young adults diagnosed with diabetes,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded the British Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK. Dr. Peters is on advisory boards for Vertex, Eli Lilly, and Medscape, receives research funding from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and has stock options for Omada Health.

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

Each additional decade of type 2 diabetes shortens lives by about 3.5 years, compared with not having diabetes, researchers estimate on the basis of data from studies conducted in 19 high-income countries.

They estimated that, among 50-year-olds, life expectancy of those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at age 30 is 14 years shorter than that of their peers without diabetes. Among those diagnosed at age 50, life expectancy is 6 years shorter.

The study was recently published in The Lancet – Diabetes and Endocrinology.

The team analyzed data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration and the UK Biobank. The data were from 97 long-term, prospective cohorts and involved 1.5 million participants who were followed for 23.1 million person-years.

“The strongest associations with earlier age at diagnosis of diabetes were for vascular (for example, myocardial infarction and stroke) and other causes of death – mainly respiratory, neurological, and infectious diseases and external causes,” they reported.

Their findings are consistent with previous studies that suggested that younger individuals who develop type 2 diabetes might have higher body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, and lipid levels and that they might experience faster deterioration in glycemic control than individuals who develop diabetes later, potentially leading to premature mortality.

Asked to comment, Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this study, said: “We’ve long known that diabetes reduces life expectancy, and the younger you get it the more years you lose. However, this study was from a broader and larger population base than prior studies.

“In this study, the major reason for death was vascular disease, and undertreatment of cardiovascular risk factors may have occurred in the younger individuals. We also don’t know about glucose control.

“I personally think the findings show that we should treat cardiovascular risk factors more aggressively in people diagnosed with [type 2] diabetes in their 30s and 40s,” urged Dr. Peters.
 

High priority should be given to prevention globally

“Type 2 diabetes used to be seen as a disease that affected older adults, but we’re increasingly seeing people diagnosed earlier in life,” senior author Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, from the University of Cambridge (England), explained in a press release. “As we’ve shown, this means they are at risk of a much shorter life expectancy than they would otherwise have.”

The findings suggest that “high priority should be given to developing and implementing interventions that prevent or delay the onset of [type 2 diabetes], especially as its prevalence among younger age groups is increasing globally,” the study authors wrote.

The results “support the idea that the younger an individual is when they develop type 2 diabetes, the more damage their body accumulates from its impaired metabolism,” added co–senior author Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow,

Dr. Peters agreed: “People who develop type 2 diabetes at a younger age might have a different, potentially more aggressive type of type 2 diabetes and perhaps need treatment targets that are lower than people who develop type 2 diabetes when they are older.”

“The findings ... suggest that early detection of diabetes by screening followed by intensive glucose management could help prevent long-term complications from the condition,” Dr. Sattar said.

Dr. Peters added: “An issue for some is pregnancy. ... Many of the medications taken for management of CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factors are contraindicated in pregnancy (as are many of the medications [for treating type 2 diabetes]).

“We need to be careful to risk reduce but take care of the ‘whole person,’ and if of childbearing age, consider the safest approaches to healthy management,” she emphasized.
 

Study results: Type 2 diabetes diagnosed at age 30, 40, and 50

Previous studies estimated that adults with type 2 diabetes die 6 years earlier on average in comparison with their counterparts who do not have diabetes, but it was not known how diabetes duration affects life span.

To investigate this, the team analyzed individual records from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration and the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other outcomes were deaths from CVD, cancer, and other causes.

Over a median follow-up of 12.5 years, there were 246,670 deaths: 84,443 from cardiovascular causes, 150, 972 from noncardiovascular causes, and 11,255 from unknown/ill-defined causes.

Compared with participants who did not have a history of type 2 diabetes, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, adjusted for age and sex, were 2.69 for participants diagnosed at age 30-39, 2.26 for those diagnosed aged 40-49, 1.84 aged 50-59, 1.57 for those aged 60-69, and 1.39 for those diagnosed 70 and older.

These hazard ratios were similar after adjusting for BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol, but they were substantially attenuated after further adjusting for fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c level.

Similar patterns were observed for cause-specific mortality.

“Every decade of earlier diagnosis of diabetes was associated with about 3-4 years of lower life expectancy, highlighting the need to develop and implement interventions that prevent or delay the onset of diabetes and to intensify the treatment of risk factors among young adults diagnosed with diabetes,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded the British Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK. Dr. Peters is on advisory boards for Vertex, Eli Lilly, and Medscape, receives research funding from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and has stock options for Omada Health.

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

Each additional decade of type 2 diabetes shortens lives by about 3.5 years, compared with not having diabetes, researchers estimate on the basis of data from studies conducted in 19 high-income countries.

They estimated that, among 50-year-olds, life expectancy of those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at age 30 is 14 years shorter than that of their peers without diabetes. Among those diagnosed at age 50, life expectancy is 6 years shorter.

The study was recently published in The Lancet – Diabetes and Endocrinology.

The team analyzed data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration and the UK Biobank. The data were from 97 long-term, prospective cohorts and involved 1.5 million participants who were followed for 23.1 million person-years.

“The strongest associations with earlier age at diagnosis of diabetes were for vascular (for example, myocardial infarction and stroke) and other causes of death – mainly respiratory, neurological, and infectious diseases and external causes,” they reported.

Their findings are consistent with previous studies that suggested that younger individuals who develop type 2 diabetes might have higher body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, and lipid levels and that they might experience faster deterioration in glycemic control than individuals who develop diabetes later, potentially leading to premature mortality.

Asked to comment, Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this study, said: “We’ve long known that diabetes reduces life expectancy, and the younger you get it the more years you lose. However, this study was from a broader and larger population base than prior studies.

“In this study, the major reason for death was vascular disease, and undertreatment of cardiovascular risk factors may have occurred in the younger individuals. We also don’t know about glucose control.

“I personally think the findings show that we should treat cardiovascular risk factors more aggressively in people diagnosed with [type 2] diabetes in their 30s and 40s,” urged Dr. Peters.
 

High priority should be given to prevention globally

“Type 2 diabetes used to be seen as a disease that affected older adults, but we’re increasingly seeing people diagnosed earlier in life,” senior author Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, from the University of Cambridge (England), explained in a press release. “As we’ve shown, this means they are at risk of a much shorter life expectancy than they would otherwise have.”

The findings suggest that “high priority should be given to developing and implementing interventions that prevent or delay the onset of [type 2 diabetes], especially as its prevalence among younger age groups is increasing globally,” the study authors wrote.

The results “support the idea that the younger an individual is when they develop type 2 diabetes, the more damage their body accumulates from its impaired metabolism,” added co–senior author Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow,

Dr. Peters agreed: “People who develop type 2 diabetes at a younger age might have a different, potentially more aggressive type of type 2 diabetes and perhaps need treatment targets that are lower than people who develop type 2 diabetes when they are older.”

“The findings ... suggest that early detection of diabetes by screening followed by intensive glucose management could help prevent long-term complications from the condition,” Dr. Sattar said.

Dr. Peters added: “An issue for some is pregnancy. ... Many of the medications taken for management of CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factors are contraindicated in pregnancy (as are many of the medications [for treating type 2 diabetes]).

“We need to be careful to risk reduce but take care of the ‘whole person,’ and if of childbearing age, consider the safest approaches to healthy management,” she emphasized.
 

Study results: Type 2 diabetes diagnosed at age 30, 40, and 50

Previous studies estimated that adults with type 2 diabetes die 6 years earlier on average in comparison with their counterparts who do not have diabetes, but it was not known how diabetes duration affects life span.

To investigate this, the team analyzed individual records from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration and the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other outcomes were deaths from CVD, cancer, and other causes.

Over a median follow-up of 12.5 years, there were 246,670 deaths: 84,443 from cardiovascular causes, 150, 972 from noncardiovascular causes, and 11,255 from unknown/ill-defined causes.

Compared with participants who did not have a history of type 2 diabetes, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, adjusted for age and sex, were 2.69 for participants diagnosed at age 30-39, 2.26 for those diagnosed aged 40-49, 1.84 aged 50-59, 1.57 for those aged 60-69, and 1.39 for those diagnosed 70 and older.

These hazard ratios were similar after adjusting for BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol, but they were substantially attenuated after further adjusting for fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c level.

Similar patterns were observed for cause-specific mortality.

“Every decade of earlier diagnosis of diabetes was associated with about 3-4 years of lower life expectancy, highlighting the need to develop and implement interventions that prevent or delay the onset of diabetes and to intensify the treatment of risk factors among young adults diagnosed with diabetes,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded the British Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK. Dr. Peters is on advisory boards for Vertex, Eli Lilly, and Medscape, receives research funding from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and has stock options for Omada Health.

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

BARCELONA – Intermittent benzodiazepine use significantly reduces the risk for falls, fractures, and mortality in older adults compared with chronic use of these medications, results of a large-scale study show.

Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.

Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.

Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.

However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Wide range of adverse outcomes

The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.

“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.

Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.

Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.

Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.

“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”

To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.

They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.

Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.

Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.

The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.

As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.

Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.

Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.

After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
 

Sex differences

In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).

There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).

A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).

Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).

The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”

He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.

“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.

If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.

“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
 

Confirmatory research

In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.

“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”

In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”

Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”

“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.

The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

BARCELONA – Intermittent benzodiazepine use significantly reduces the risk for falls, fractures, and mortality in older adults compared with chronic use of these medications, results of a large-scale study show.

Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.

Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.

Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.

However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Wide range of adverse outcomes

The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.

“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.

Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.

Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.

Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.

“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”

To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.

They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.

Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.

Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.

The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.

As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.

Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.

Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.

After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
 

Sex differences

In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).

There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).

A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).

Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).

The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”

He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.

“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.

If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.

“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
 

Confirmatory research

In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.

“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”

In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”

Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”

“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.

The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

BARCELONA – Intermittent benzodiazepine use significantly reduces the risk for falls, fractures, and mortality in older adults compared with chronic use of these medications, results of a large-scale study show.

Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.

Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.

Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.

However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Wide range of adverse outcomes

The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.

“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.

Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.

Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.

Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.

“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”

To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.

They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.

Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.

Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.

The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.

As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.

Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.

Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.

After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
 

Sex differences

In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).

There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).

A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).

Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).

The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”

He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.

“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.

If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.

“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
 

Confirmatory research

In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.

“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”

In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”

Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”

“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.

The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

BARCELONA – Intranasal esketamine (Spravato, Janssen) is superior to extended-release quetiapine (Seroquel, AstraZeneca), an atypical antipsychotic, for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), results of a large, multicenter, head-to-head phase 3 trial show.

Results from the ESCAPE-TRD study, which included 675 participants with TRD, show that esketamine was associated with significantly increased rates of both depression and functional remission, compared with quetiapine.

More than 675 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two drugs along with ongoing treatment with an SSRI or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI).

Esketamine increased remission rates at 2 and 8 months over quetiapine by 72% and raised functional remission rates at 8 months by 88% while decreasing adverse event rates.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New hope

The results provide “some hope for our patients suffering from TRD, which, given the data, is somewhat of a misnomer,” said study investigator Andreas Reif, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt–Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and president-elect of the ECNP.

“These patients are not resistant, they just have resistance to monoaminergic drugs,” he added. Esketamine, he said, is a “new weapon in our armamentarium.”

Dr. Reif said TRD is a serious condition that affects approximately 20%-30% of those with major depressive disorder and has “substantial impact” on patients’ lives, including quality of life and level of functioning.

“We know that esketamine nasal spray is effective in TRD. However, up to now, there were only placebo-controlled trials in addition to ongoing antidepressant treatment,” Dr. Reif noted. Consequently, he added, a head-to-head comparison with an active agent with proven efficacy was “urgently needed.”

For the trial, patients from 171 sites in 24 countries with TRD, defined as a less than 25% improvement in symptoms with two or more consecutive treatments of adequate dosage and duration, were randomly assigned to receive esketamine nasal spray (n = 336) or quetiapine (n = 340) extended release together with ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy.

Both esketamine and quetiapine were flexibly dosed. The primary endpoint was rates of remission at week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). After week 8, patients entered a maintenance phase that lasted to week 32.

Dr. Reif said the study population was representative of a typical TRD population.

The average duration of the current depression episode was more than 5 years, and the average MADRS score was above 30.
 

Key findings

Results showed that those who received esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI experienced a significantly higher rate of remission at week 8, compared with those treated with quetiapine (27.1% vs. 17.6%; P = .003). This equated to an adjusted odds ratio for remission of 1.74 (P = .003).

Use of esketamine was also associated with a higher rate of remission at week 8, and patients remained relapse free at week 32 (21.7% vs. 14.1% with quetiapine; odds ratio, 1.72; P = .008).

At every time point through the study, the proportion of patients experiencing remission was significantly greater with esketamine than with quetiapine. The absolute rate of remission at week 32 was 55.0%, versus 37.0% (P < .001).

Dr. Reif noted that the definition of remission used in the study was a MADRS score of less than or equal to 10, but if the “more lenient” definition of less than or equal to 12, which has been used previously, were to be applied, the absolute remission rates would rise to 65.1%, versus 46.7%.

Dr. Reif also presented results on functional remission rates beyond 32 weeks – data that were not included in the study as published in NEJM.

While remission rates increased over time in both study arms, the functional remission rate at week 32 was, again, significantly higher with esketamine than with quetiapine (38.1% vs. 25.0%; OR, 1.88; P < .001).

The safety data revealed no new signals, Dr. Reif said. Use of esketamine was associated with a lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, at 4.2% vs. 11.0% with quetiapine.

Among patients given the ketamine-derived drug, there were lower rates of nervous system disorders, and there were no incidences of weight gain, fatigue, or hangover.

Dr. Reif said the results show that esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine in achieving remission over time and that it “greatly improves patients’ functional impairment” while achieving “generally lower” adverse event rates.

He added that they are currently running a significant number of secondary analyses “to give us a better grasp of which patient benefits most” from esketamine therapy over quetiapine. The results may potentially be used to guide patient selection.
 

‘Tremendous advance’

Session co-chair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Tel Aviv (Israel) University, said in an interview that the results are “very exciting” and offer “further proof of a tremendous advance in our field.”

Dr. Weiser, who was not involved in the study, added that demonstrating functional improvement with esketamine was key.

“It’s great to improve symptoms,” he said, “but to have patients show an improvement in their functionality is really the bottom line of this. Not only do you feel better, but you function better, and that’s of extreme importance and makes us feel very optimistic about the future.”

Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, MD, PhD, head of psychiatry, Vall Hebron University Hospital and Autonomous University of Barcelona, welcomed the findings.

“The results of this study show the superior response and safety of esketamine nasal spray when compared with quetiapine,” he said in a release. “This gives people with treatment-resistant depression more safe treatment options.”

The study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Dr. Reif has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, COMPASS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova USA, Medice, Saga Therapeutics, and Shire. Other authors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry.

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

BARCELONA – Intranasal esketamine (Spravato, Janssen) is superior to extended-release quetiapine (Seroquel, AstraZeneca), an atypical antipsychotic, for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), results of a large, multicenter, head-to-head phase 3 trial show.

Results from the ESCAPE-TRD study, which included 675 participants with TRD, show that esketamine was associated with significantly increased rates of both depression and functional remission, compared with quetiapine.

More than 675 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two drugs along with ongoing treatment with an SSRI or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI).

Esketamine increased remission rates at 2 and 8 months over quetiapine by 72% and raised functional remission rates at 8 months by 88% while decreasing adverse event rates.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New hope

The results provide “some hope for our patients suffering from TRD, which, given the data, is somewhat of a misnomer,” said study investigator Andreas Reif, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt–Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and president-elect of the ECNP.

“These patients are not resistant, they just have resistance to monoaminergic drugs,” he added. Esketamine, he said, is a “new weapon in our armamentarium.”

Dr. Reif said TRD is a serious condition that affects approximately 20%-30% of those with major depressive disorder and has “substantial impact” on patients’ lives, including quality of life and level of functioning.

“We know that esketamine nasal spray is effective in TRD. However, up to now, there were only placebo-controlled trials in addition to ongoing antidepressant treatment,” Dr. Reif noted. Consequently, he added, a head-to-head comparison with an active agent with proven efficacy was “urgently needed.”

For the trial, patients from 171 sites in 24 countries with TRD, defined as a less than 25% improvement in symptoms with two or more consecutive treatments of adequate dosage and duration, were randomly assigned to receive esketamine nasal spray (n = 336) or quetiapine (n = 340) extended release together with ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy.

Both esketamine and quetiapine were flexibly dosed. The primary endpoint was rates of remission at week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). After week 8, patients entered a maintenance phase that lasted to week 32.

Dr. Reif said the study population was representative of a typical TRD population.

The average duration of the current depression episode was more than 5 years, and the average MADRS score was above 30.
 

Key findings

Results showed that those who received esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI experienced a significantly higher rate of remission at week 8, compared with those treated with quetiapine (27.1% vs. 17.6%; P = .003). This equated to an adjusted odds ratio for remission of 1.74 (P = .003).

Use of esketamine was also associated with a higher rate of remission at week 8, and patients remained relapse free at week 32 (21.7% vs. 14.1% with quetiapine; odds ratio, 1.72; P = .008).

At every time point through the study, the proportion of patients experiencing remission was significantly greater with esketamine than with quetiapine. The absolute rate of remission at week 32 was 55.0%, versus 37.0% (P < .001).

Dr. Reif noted that the definition of remission used in the study was a MADRS score of less than or equal to 10, but if the “more lenient” definition of less than or equal to 12, which has been used previously, were to be applied, the absolute remission rates would rise to 65.1%, versus 46.7%.

Dr. Reif also presented results on functional remission rates beyond 32 weeks – data that were not included in the study as published in NEJM.

While remission rates increased over time in both study arms, the functional remission rate at week 32 was, again, significantly higher with esketamine than with quetiapine (38.1% vs. 25.0%; OR, 1.88; P < .001).

The safety data revealed no new signals, Dr. Reif said. Use of esketamine was associated with a lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, at 4.2% vs. 11.0% with quetiapine.

Among patients given the ketamine-derived drug, there were lower rates of nervous system disorders, and there were no incidences of weight gain, fatigue, or hangover.

Dr. Reif said the results show that esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine in achieving remission over time and that it “greatly improves patients’ functional impairment” while achieving “generally lower” adverse event rates.

He added that they are currently running a significant number of secondary analyses “to give us a better grasp of which patient benefits most” from esketamine therapy over quetiapine. The results may potentially be used to guide patient selection.
 

‘Tremendous advance’

Session co-chair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Tel Aviv (Israel) University, said in an interview that the results are “very exciting” and offer “further proof of a tremendous advance in our field.”

Dr. Weiser, who was not involved in the study, added that demonstrating functional improvement with esketamine was key.

“It’s great to improve symptoms,” he said, “but to have patients show an improvement in their functionality is really the bottom line of this. Not only do you feel better, but you function better, and that’s of extreme importance and makes us feel very optimistic about the future.”

Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, MD, PhD, head of psychiatry, Vall Hebron University Hospital and Autonomous University of Barcelona, welcomed the findings.

“The results of this study show the superior response and safety of esketamine nasal spray when compared with quetiapine,” he said in a release. “This gives people with treatment-resistant depression more safe treatment options.”

The study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Dr. Reif has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, COMPASS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova USA, Medice, Saga Therapeutics, and Shire. Other authors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry.

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

BARCELONA – Intranasal esketamine (Spravato, Janssen) is superior to extended-release quetiapine (Seroquel, AstraZeneca), an atypical antipsychotic, for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), results of a large, multicenter, head-to-head phase 3 trial show.

Results from the ESCAPE-TRD study, which included 675 participants with TRD, show that esketamine was associated with significantly increased rates of both depression and functional remission, compared with quetiapine.

More than 675 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two drugs along with ongoing treatment with an SSRI or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI).

Esketamine increased remission rates at 2 and 8 months over quetiapine by 72% and raised functional remission rates at 8 months by 88% while decreasing adverse event rates.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New hope

The results provide “some hope for our patients suffering from TRD, which, given the data, is somewhat of a misnomer,” said study investigator Andreas Reif, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt–Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and president-elect of the ECNP.

“These patients are not resistant, they just have resistance to monoaminergic drugs,” he added. Esketamine, he said, is a “new weapon in our armamentarium.”

Dr. Reif said TRD is a serious condition that affects approximately 20%-30% of those with major depressive disorder and has “substantial impact” on patients’ lives, including quality of life and level of functioning.

“We know that esketamine nasal spray is effective in TRD. However, up to now, there were only placebo-controlled trials in addition to ongoing antidepressant treatment,” Dr. Reif noted. Consequently, he added, a head-to-head comparison with an active agent with proven efficacy was “urgently needed.”

For the trial, patients from 171 sites in 24 countries with TRD, defined as a less than 25% improvement in symptoms with two or more consecutive treatments of adequate dosage and duration, were randomly assigned to receive esketamine nasal spray (n = 336) or quetiapine (n = 340) extended release together with ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy.

Both esketamine and quetiapine were flexibly dosed. The primary endpoint was rates of remission at week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). After week 8, patients entered a maintenance phase that lasted to week 32.

Dr. Reif said the study population was representative of a typical TRD population.

The average duration of the current depression episode was more than 5 years, and the average MADRS score was above 30.
 

Key findings

Results showed that those who received esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI experienced a significantly higher rate of remission at week 8, compared with those treated with quetiapine (27.1% vs. 17.6%; P = .003). This equated to an adjusted odds ratio for remission of 1.74 (P = .003).

Use of esketamine was also associated with a higher rate of remission at week 8, and patients remained relapse free at week 32 (21.7% vs. 14.1% with quetiapine; odds ratio, 1.72; P = .008).

At every time point through the study, the proportion of patients experiencing remission was significantly greater with esketamine than with quetiapine. The absolute rate of remission at week 32 was 55.0%, versus 37.0% (P < .001).

Dr. Reif noted that the definition of remission used in the study was a MADRS score of less than or equal to 10, but if the “more lenient” definition of less than or equal to 12, which has been used previously, were to be applied, the absolute remission rates would rise to 65.1%, versus 46.7%.

Dr. Reif also presented results on functional remission rates beyond 32 weeks – data that were not included in the study as published in NEJM.

While remission rates increased over time in both study arms, the functional remission rate at week 32 was, again, significantly higher with esketamine than with quetiapine (38.1% vs. 25.0%; OR, 1.88; P < .001).

The safety data revealed no new signals, Dr. Reif said. Use of esketamine was associated with a lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, at 4.2% vs. 11.0% with quetiapine.

Among patients given the ketamine-derived drug, there were lower rates of nervous system disorders, and there were no incidences of weight gain, fatigue, or hangover.

Dr. Reif said the results show that esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine in achieving remission over time and that it “greatly improves patients’ functional impairment” while achieving “generally lower” adverse event rates.

He added that they are currently running a significant number of secondary analyses “to give us a better grasp of which patient benefits most” from esketamine therapy over quetiapine. The results may potentially be used to guide patient selection.
 

‘Tremendous advance’

Session co-chair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Tel Aviv (Israel) University, said in an interview that the results are “very exciting” and offer “further proof of a tremendous advance in our field.”

Dr. Weiser, who was not involved in the study, added that demonstrating functional improvement with esketamine was key.

“It’s great to improve symptoms,” he said, “but to have patients show an improvement in their functionality is really the bottom line of this. Not only do you feel better, but you function better, and that’s of extreme importance and makes us feel very optimistic about the future.”

Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, MD, PhD, head of psychiatry, Vall Hebron University Hospital and Autonomous University of Barcelona, welcomed the findings.

“The results of this study show the superior response and safety of esketamine nasal spray when compared with quetiapine,” he said in a release. “This gives people with treatment-resistant depression more safe treatment options.”

The study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Dr. Reif has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, COMPASS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova USA, Medice, Saga Therapeutics, and Shire. Other authors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vaginal dryness is killing women.

I mean it. It’s actually killing women.

What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.

GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.

What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.

The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.

Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.

There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.

These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.

We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.

Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.

You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vaginal dryness is killing women.

I mean it. It’s actually killing women.

What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.

GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.

What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.

The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.

Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.

There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.

These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.

We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.

Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.

You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vaginal dryness is killing women.

I mean it. It’s actually killing women.

What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.

GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.

What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.

The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.

Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.

There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.

These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.

We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.

Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.

You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approval of zuranolone for postpartum depression in August 2023 has raised many important questions (and opinions) about its future use in clinical practice.

At the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, we treat women and pregnant people throughout hormonal transitions, including pregnancy and the postpartum, and have been part of development, research, and now delivery of both brexanolone and zuranolone. While we are excited about new tools in the arsenal for alleviating maternal mental health, we also want to be clear that our work is far from complete and continued efforts to care for pregnant people and their families are imperative.

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

What is zuranolone?

Zuranolone (brand name Zurzuvae) is an oral medication developed by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen. It is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA_A receptor, the brain’s major inhibitory system. As a positive allosteric modulator, it increases the sensitivity of the GABA_A receptor to GABA.

Zuranolone is very similar to brexanolone, a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid byproduct of progesterone (see below). However, zuranolone is not an oral form of brexanolone – it was slightly modified to ensure good oral stability and bioavailability. It is metabolized by the hepatic enzyme CYP3A4 and has a half-life of 16-23 hours. Zurzuvae is currently produced in capsule form.
 

What does zuranolone treat?

Zuranolone is the first FDA-approved oral drug for postpartum depression (PPD). It follows brexanolone, an intravenous drug, which was the first FDA-approved medication for PPD. Though these are the first medications with specific approval for PDD, many other treatment options are currently available including therapy, SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other treatments used in major depression.

How does zuranolone work?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which means that it is a steroid that goes into and acts on the brain. Zuranolone binds to different GABA receptor subunits from those bound by other positive modulators, such as benzodiazepines (for example, lorazepam). As a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a metabolite of progesterone which rises dramatically in pregnancy then drops during labor and delivery, zuranolone was originally thought to mitigate the response to this drop in patients that are vulnerable to it during the postpartum. An alternative proposed mechanism is that the increased GABAergic, inhibitory signaling with zuranolone may act directly to decrease depression irrespective of the exact mechanism by which the depression occurred.

How was it studied?

Zuranolone was studied in women with severe postpartum depression and had to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy (about 28 weeks’ gestation) and no later than 4 weeks post partum. Patients were excluded from these studies if they had a history of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, attempted suicide, or if they were at risk for suicide.

The two phase 3 clinical trials that led to FDA approval are ROBIN and SKYLARK. These studies measured the efficacy and safety of zuranolone at 30 mg and 50 mg, respectively, and met their end points of rapid improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms in postpartum depression.
 

When will we be able to start using it?

It is anticipated that zuranolone will become commercially available in early 2024.

Who can prescribe it?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Those with medical licenses. Most people will likely receive treatment from their obstetric, family medicine, or psychiatric clinicians.

How much will it cost?

The manufacturers have not released this information as of August 2023.

What sort of doses and duration is recommended?

The current FDA recommended dose is 50 mg for 14 days, taken once per evening with a fatty meal. The dose can be reduced to 40 mg if there are central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects, and to 30 mg if the patient has severe hepatic or moderate-severe renal impairment. There are currently no studies on longer courses of treatment.

What happens if the patient relapses after a 14-day trial?

While there is no clear guidance, an open-label trial (The SHORELINE Study) demonstrated that a repeated 14-day administration can restore clinical response.

What are the side effects?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Common side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, lower energy, diarrhea, and symptoms similar to the common cold. Zuranolone can act like a CNS depressant and can lead to sedation and somnolence.

Are there any boxed warnings?

Because of the CNS depressant effects, zuranolone was given a boxed warning that patients should not drive or operate heavy machinery within 12 hours of taking the medication as it may lead to impairment. Similar to other antidepressants, there is also a warning that zuranolone may increase risk for suicidal thoughts in patients under 24 years old.

Can it be used with other medications?

Yes. In the original trials, women were allowed to remain on medications treating their depressive symptoms (such as SSRIs and SNRIs). According to the FDA, zuranolone can be used alone or with other antidepressants.

Are there any medicines to avoid?

We recommend caution with other medications which may increase sedation, such as benzodiazepines.

Can it be used with birth control?

Yes. In fact, because the outcomes on a fetus are not yet studied, it is recommended that patients be on concurrent birth control during treatment and for a week after cessation. This does not mean that zuranolone is known to cause issues with fetal development, but rather that we do not know at this time.

Can it be used in pregnancy?

As above, the outcomes on fetal development are not known at this time, nor are the effects of zuranolone on labor and delivery. More research will need to be done to understand if there is risk with taking zuranolone during pregnancy. It should be noted that allopregnanolone levels ordinarily reach quite high levels during pregnancy.
 

Long-term side effects?

Long-term side effects are unknown. The study duration of ROBIN and SKYLARK was 45 days.

Breastfeeding?

Use in lactation has not yet been studied. Continued research is needed.

Can it be used in mood changes related to other reproductive changes or diagnoses like premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause?

The mechanism by which zuranolone is thought to work – that is, during changes in reproductive hormones – is implicated in other reproductive transitions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause when reproductive hormones are fluctuating, though at lower levels than in pregnancy. Research will be required to assess efficacy and safety; however, the mechanistic reasons is worth pursuing. Additionally, zuranolone has not been studied in postpartum psychosis.

Can zuranolone be used to treat other affective conditions besides postpartum depression? Bipolar disorder?

Zuranolone is currently only approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It has not received FDA approval for major depression outside of the perinatal period at this time. Whether it may be beneficial for patients with a depressive episode that is part of an underlying bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illness is not yet known.

Anxiety?

Along with depressive symptoms, women who received zuranolone in the clinical trials also had improvements in anxiety symptoms. These findings provide some hope that zuranolone may eventually be beneficial in patients with anxiety.

However, to date zuranolone has not been directly studied as a treatment for anxiety disorders (such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc.), so its efficacy for these illnesses is currently unknown.
 

Insomnia?

In a study of 153 postpartum women, randomized to placebo or zuranolone, scale questions for insomnia were improved in the group receiving zuranolone. This provides some hope that, if zuranolone is appropriate, concurrent polypharmacy with a sleep aid can be avoided. Additionally, future evaluation of use in insomnia outside of PPD may be warranted.

How is it different from brexanolone?

The two are slightly different molecules. Brexanolone is synthetically identical to allopregnanolone and zuranolone has been altered to be active and orally bioavailable.

Brexanolone is a 60-hour infusion that requires hospital admission at an approved health care site. Zuranolone is an oral at-home once-daily dosing treatment for 14 days. Zuranolone does not require enrollment in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for risk of excessive sedation and sudden loss of consciousness.
 

When would you consider zuranolone vs. brexanolone vs. other antidepressants?

Zuranolone and brexanolone are rapid-acting antidepressants with a response within 14 days or 60 hours, respectively. Antidepressants such as SSRIs/SNRIs are still available, well studied, and work, although take longer to reach clinical efficacy and are accompanied by potentially troubling side effects (for example, weight gain, sexual dysfunction).

Time to treatment effect should be considered when assessing severity of symptoms and functional impairment of the mother and the overall family unit. Brexanolone requires continuous monitoring which may be beneficial for women who are severely impaired and may benefit from frequent clinical monitoring. Brexanolone does not require a dose reduction with hepatic impairment, however, should be avoided in end-stage renal disease because of the potential accumulation of the solubilizing agent.
 

Where can I find more information?

Many states have maternal mental health consultation lines (examples include NCMATTERS here in North Carolina and MCPAP for Moms in Massachusetts) for clinicians (mental health, primary care, and obstetricians) that can be utilized for questions about prescribing. Postpartum Support International also has a clinician line for those without state services.

We plan to update this entry upon market release and access to new information.

Dr. Riddle and Dr. Nathan are assistant professors in the department of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Richardson is a perinatal psychiatry fellow, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Rubinow is Distinguished Professor in the department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Meltzer-Brody is Assad Meymandi Distinguished Professor and Chair, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill.

References

Deligiannidis KM et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 30;84(1):22m14475. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14475.

Deligiannidis KM et al. . Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023 May;141(5S):64S-65S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000930588.16136.3f.

Deligiannidis KM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1;180(9):668-75. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

Deligiannidis KM et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 1;78(9):951-59. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559.

FDA Approves First Oral Treatment for Postpartum Depression. 2023 Aug 4. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-oral-treatment-postpartum-depression

ZURZUVAE – HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/217369s000lbl.pdf

The Food and Drug Administration approval of zuranolone for postpartum depression in August 2023 has raised many important questions (and opinions) about its future use in clinical practice.

At the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, we treat women and pregnant people throughout hormonal transitions, including pregnancy and the postpartum, and have been part of development, research, and now delivery of both brexanolone and zuranolone. While we are excited about new tools in the arsenal for alleviating maternal mental health, we also want to be clear that our work is far from complete and continued efforts to care for pregnant people and their families are imperative.

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

What is zuranolone?

Zuranolone (brand name Zurzuvae) is an oral medication developed by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen. It is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA_A receptor, the brain’s major inhibitory system. As a positive allosteric modulator, it increases the sensitivity of the GABA_A receptor to GABA.

Zuranolone is very similar to brexanolone, a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid byproduct of progesterone (see below). However, zuranolone is not an oral form of brexanolone – it was slightly modified to ensure good oral stability and bioavailability. It is metabolized by the hepatic enzyme CYP3A4 and has a half-life of 16-23 hours. Zurzuvae is currently produced in capsule form.
 

What does zuranolone treat?

Zuranolone is the first FDA-approved oral drug for postpartum depression (PPD). It follows brexanolone, an intravenous drug, which was the first FDA-approved medication for PPD. Though these are the first medications with specific approval for PDD, many other treatment options are currently available including therapy, SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other treatments used in major depression.

How does zuranolone work?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which means that it is a steroid that goes into and acts on the brain. Zuranolone binds to different GABA receptor subunits from those bound by other positive modulators, such as benzodiazepines (for example, lorazepam). As a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a metabolite of progesterone which rises dramatically in pregnancy then drops during labor and delivery, zuranolone was originally thought to mitigate the response to this drop in patients that are vulnerable to it during the postpartum. An alternative proposed mechanism is that the increased GABAergic, inhibitory signaling with zuranolone may act directly to decrease depression irrespective of the exact mechanism by which the depression occurred.

How was it studied?

Zuranolone was studied in women with severe postpartum depression and had to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy (about 28 weeks’ gestation) and no later than 4 weeks post partum. Patients were excluded from these studies if they had a history of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, attempted suicide, or if they were at risk for suicide.

The two phase 3 clinical trials that led to FDA approval are ROBIN and SKYLARK. These studies measured the efficacy and safety of zuranolone at 30 mg and 50 mg, respectively, and met their end points of rapid improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms in postpartum depression.
 

When will we be able to start using it?

It is anticipated that zuranolone will become commercially available in early 2024.

Who can prescribe it?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Those with medical licenses. Most people will likely receive treatment from their obstetric, family medicine, or psychiatric clinicians.

How much will it cost?

The manufacturers have not released this information as of August 2023.

What sort of doses and duration is recommended?

The current FDA recommended dose is 50 mg for 14 days, taken once per evening with a fatty meal. The dose can be reduced to 40 mg if there are central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects, and to 30 mg if the patient has severe hepatic or moderate-severe renal impairment. There are currently no studies on longer courses of treatment.

What happens if the patient relapses after a 14-day trial?

While there is no clear guidance, an open-label trial (The SHORELINE Study) demonstrated that a repeated 14-day administration can restore clinical response.

What are the side effects?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Common side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, lower energy, diarrhea, and symptoms similar to the common cold. Zuranolone can act like a CNS depressant and can lead to sedation and somnolence.

Are there any boxed warnings?

Because of the CNS depressant effects, zuranolone was given a boxed warning that patients should not drive or operate heavy machinery within 12 hours of taking the medication as it may lead to impairment. Similar to other antidepressants, there is also a warning that zuranolone may increase risk for suicidal thoughts in patients under 24 years old.

Can it be used with other medications?

Yes. In the original trials, women were allowed to remain on medications treating their depressive symptoms (such as SSRIs and SNRIs). According to the FDA, zuranolone can be used alone or with other antidepressants.

Are there any medicines to avoid?

We recommend caution with other medications which may increase sedation, such as benzodiazepines.

Can it be used with birth control?

Yes. In fact, because the outcomes on a fetus are not yet studied, it is recommended that patients be on concurrent birth control during treatment and for a week after cessation. This does not mean that zuranolone is known to cause issues with fetal development, but rather that we do not know at this time.

Can it be used in pregnancy?

As above, the outcomes on fetal development are not known at this time, nor are the effects of zuranolone on labor and delivery. More research will need to be done to understand if there is risk with taking zuranolone during pregnancy. It should be noted that allopregnanolone levels ordinarily reach quite high levels during pregnancy.
 

Long-term side effects?

Long-term side effects are unknown. The study duration of ROBIN and SKYLARK was 45 days.

Breastfeeding?

Use in lactation has not yet been studied. Continued research is needed.

Can it be used in mood changes related to other reproductive changes or diagnoses like premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause?

The mechanism by which zuranolone is thought to work – that is, during changes in reproductive hormones – is implicated in other reproductive transitions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause when reproductive hormones are fluctuating, though at lower levels than in pregnancy. Research will be required to assess efficacy and safety; however, the mechanistic reasons is worth pursuing. Additionally, zuranolone has not been studied in postpartum psychosis.

Can zuranolone be used to treat other affective conditions besides postpartum depression? Bipolar disorder?

Zuranolone is currently only approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It has not received FDA approval for major depression outside of the perinatal period at this time. Whether it may be beneficial for patients with a depressive episode that is part of an underlying bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illness is not yet known.

Anxiety?

Along with depressive symptoms, women who received zuranolone in the clinical trials also had improvements in anxiety symptoms. These findings provide some hope that zuranolone may eventually be beneficial in patients with anxiety.

However, to date zuranolone has not been directly studied as a treatment for anxiety disorders (such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc.), so its efficacy for these illnesses is currently unknown.
 

Insomnia?

In a study of 153 postpartum women, randomized to placebo or zuranolone, scale questions for insomnia were improved in the group receiving zuranolone. This provides some hope that, if zuranolone is appropriate, concurrent polypharmacy with a sleep aid can be avoided. Additionally, future evaluation of use in insomnia outside of PPD may be warranted.

How is it different from brexanolone?

The two are slightly different molecules. Brexanolone is synthetically identical to allopregnanolone and zuranolone has been altered to be active and orally bioavailable.

Brexanolone is a 60-hour infusion that requires hospital admission at an approved health care site. Zuranolone is an oral at-home once-daily dosing treatment for 14 days. Zuranolone does not require enrollment in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for risk of excessive sedation and sudden loss of consciousness.
 

When would you consider zuranolone vs. brexanolone vs. other antidepressants?

Zuranolone and brexanolone are rapid-acting antidepressants with a response within 14 days or 60 hours, respectively. Antidepressants such as SSRIs/SNRIs are still available, well studied, and work, although take longer to reach clinical efficacy and are accompanied by potentially troubling side effects (for example, weight gain, sexual dysfunction).

Time to treatment effect should be considered when assessing severity of symptoms and functional impairment of the mother and the overall family unit. Brexanolone requires continuous monitoring which may be beneficial for women who are severely impaired and may benefit from frequent clinical monitoring. Brexanolone does not require a dose reduction with hepatic impairment, however, should be avoided in end-stage renal disease because of the potential accumulation of the solubilizing agent.
 

Where can I find more information?

Many states have maternal mental health consultation lines (examples include NCMATTERS here in North Carolina and MCPAP for Moms in Massachusetts) for clinicians (mental health, primary care, and obstetricians) that can be utilized for questions about prescribing. Postpartum Support International also has a clinician line for those without state services.

We plan to update this entry upon market release and access to new information.

Dr. Riddle and Dr. Nathan are assistant professors in the department of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Richardson is a perinatal psychiatry fellow, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Rubinow is Distinguished Professor in the department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Meltzer-Brody is Assad Meymandi Distinguished Professor and Chair, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill.

References

Deligiannidis KM et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 30;84(1):22m14475. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14475.

Deligiannidis KM et al. . Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023 May;141(5S):64S-65S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000930588.16136.3f.

Deligiannidis KM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1;180(9):668-75. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

Deligiannidis KM et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 1;78(9):951-59. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559.

FDA Approves First Oral Treatment for Postpartum Depression. 2023 Aug 4. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-oral-treatment-postpartum-depression

ZURZUVAE – HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/217369s000lbl.pdf

The Food and Drug Administration approval of zuranolone for postpartum depression in August 2023 has raised many important questions (and opinions) about its future use in clinical practice.

At the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, we treat women and pregnant people throughout hormonal transitions, including pregnancy and the postpartum, and have been part of development, research, and now delivery of both brexanolone and zuranolone. While we are excited about new tools in the arsenal for alleviating maternal mental health, we also want to be clear that our work is far from complete and continued efforts to care for pregnant people and their families are imperative.

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

What is zuranolone?

Zuranolone (brand name Zurzuvae) is an oral medication developed by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen. It is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA_A receptor, the brain’s major inhibitory system. As a positive allosteric modulator, it increases the sensitivity of the GABA_A receptor to GABA.

Zuranolone is very similar to brexanolone, a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid byproduct of progesterone (see below). However, zuranolone is not an oral form of brexanolone – it was slightly modified to ensure good oral stability and bioavailability. It is metabolized by the hepatic enzyme CYP3A4 and has a half-life of 16-23 hours. Zurzuvae is currently produced in capsule form.
 

What does zuranolone treat?

Zuranolone is the first FDA-approved oral drug for postpartum depression (PPD). It follows brexanolone, an intravenous drug, which was the first FDA-approved medication for PPD. Though these are the first medications with specific approval for PDD, many other treatment options are currently available including therapy, SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other treatments used in major depression.

How does zuranolone work?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which means that it is a steroid that goes into and acts on the brain. Zuranolone binds to different GABA receptor subunits from those bound by other positive modulators, such as benzodiazepines (for example, lorazepam). As a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a metabolite of progesterone which rises dramatically in pregnancy then drops during labor and delivery, zuranolone was originally thought to mitigate the response to this drop in patients that are vulnerable to it during the postpartum. An alternative proposed mechanism is that the increased GABAergic, inhibitory signaling with zuranolone may act directly to decrease depression irrespective of the exact mechanism by which the depression occurred.

How was it studied?

Zuranolone was studied in women with severe postpartum depression and had to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy (about 28 weeks’ gestation) and no later than 4 weeks post partum. Patients were excluded from these studies if they had a history of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, attempted suicide, or if they were at risk for suicide.

The two phase 3 clinical trials that led to FDA approval are ROBIN and SKYLARK. These studies measured the efficacy and safety of zuranolone at 30 mg and 50 mg, respectively, and met their end points of rapid improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms in postpartum depression.
 

When will we be able to start using it?

It is anticipated that zuranolone will become commercially available in early 2024.

Who can prescribe it?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Those with medical licenses. Most people will likely receive treatment from their obstetric, family medicine, or psychiatric clinicians.

How much will it cost?

The manufacturers have not released this information as of August 2023.

What sort of doses and duration is recommended?

The current FDA recommended dose is 50 mg for 14 days, taken once per evening with a fatty meal. The dose can be reduced to 40 mg if there are central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects, and to 30 mg if the patient has severe hepatic or moderate-severe renal impairment. There are currently no studies on longer courses of treatment.

What happens if the patient relapses after a 14-day trial?

While there is no clear guidance, an open-label trial (The SHORELINE Study) demonstrated that a repeated 14-day administration can restore clinical response.

What are the side effects?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Common side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, lower energy, diarrhea, and symptoms similar to the common cold. Zuranolone can act like a CNS depressant and can lead to sedation and somnolence.

Are there any boxed warnings?

Because of the CNS depressant effects, zuranolone was given a boxed warning that patients should not drive or operate heavy machinery within 12 hours of taking the medication as it may lead to impairment. Similar to other antidepressants, there is also a warning that zuranolone may increase risk for suicidal thoughts in patients under 24 years old.

Can it be used with other medications?

Yes. In the original trials, women were allowed to remain on medications treating their depressive symptoms (such as SSRIs and SNRIs). According to the FDA, zuranolone can be used alone or with other antidepressants.

Are there any medicines to avoid?

We recommend caution with other medications which may increase sedation, such as benzodiazepines.

Can it be used with birth control?

Yes. In fact, because the outcomes on a fetus are not yet studied, it is recommended that patients be on concurrent birth control during treatment and for a week after cessation. This does not mean that zuranolone is known to cause issues with fetal development, but rather that we do not know at this time.

Can it be used in pregnancy?

As above, the outcomes on fetal development are not known at this time, nor are the effects of zuranolone on labor and delivery. More research will need to be done to understand if there is risk with taking zuranolone during pregnancy. It should be noted that allopregnanolone levels ordinarily reach quite high levels during pregnancy.
 

Long-term side effects?

Long-term side effects are unknown. The study duration of ROBIN and SKYLARK was 45 days.

Breastfeeding?

Use in lactation has not yet been studied. Continued research is needed.

Can it be used in mood changes related to other reproductive changes or diagnoses like premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause?

The mechanism by which zuranolone is thought to work – that is, during changes in reproductive hormones – is implicated in other reproductive transitions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause when reproductive hormones are fluctuating, though at lower levels than in pregnancy. Research will be required to assess efficacy and safety; however, the mechanistic reasons is worth pursuing. Additionally, zuranolone has not been studied in postpartum psychosis.

Can zuranolone be used to treat other affective conditions besides postpartum depression? Bipolar disorder?

Zuranolone is currently only approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It has not received FDA approval for major depression outside of the perinatal period at this time. Whether it may be beneficial for patients with a depressive episode that is part of an underlying bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illness is not yet known.

Anxiety?

Along with depressive symptoms, women who received zuranolone in the clinical trials also had improvements in anxiety symptoms. These findings provide some hope that zuranolone may eventually be beneficial in patients with anxiety.

However, to date zuranolone has not been directly studied as a treatment for anxiety disorders (such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc.), so its efficacy for these illnesses is currently unknown.
 

Insomnia?

In a study of 153 postpartum women, randomized to placebo or zuranolone, scale questions for insomnia were improved in the group receiving zuranolone. This provides some hope that, if zuranolone is appropriate, concurrent polypharmacy with a sleep aid can be avoided. Additionally, future evaluation of use in insomnia outside of PPD may be warranted.

How is it different from brexanolone?

The two are slightly different molecules. Brexanolone is synthetically identical to allopregnanolone and zuranolone has been altered to be active and orally bioavailable.

Brexanolone is a 60-hour infusion that requires hospital admission at an approved health care site. Zuranolone is an oral at-home once-daily dosing treatment for 14 days. Zuranolone does not require enrollment in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for risk of excessive sedation and sudden loss of consciousness.
 

When would you consider zuranolone vs. brexanolone vs. other antidepressants?

Zuranolone and brexanolone are rapid-acting antidepressants with a response within 14 days or 60 hours, respectively. Antidepressants such as SSRIs/SNRIs are still available, well studied, and work, although take longer to reach clinical efficacy and are accompanied by potentially troubling side effects (for example, weight gain, sexual dysfunction).

Time to treatment effect should be considered when assessing severity of symptoms and functional impairment of the mother and the overall family unit. Brexanolone requires continuous monitoring which may be beneficial for women who are severely impaired and may benefit from frequent clinical monitoring. Brexanolone does not require a dose reduction with hepatic impairment, however, should be avoided in end-stage renal disease because of the potential accumulation of the solubilizing agent.
 

Where can I find more information?

Many states have maternal mental health consultation lines (examples include NCMATTERS here in North Carolina and MCPAP for Moms in Massachusetts) for clinicians (mental health, primary care, and obstetricians) that can be utilized for questions about prescribing. Postpartum Support International also has a clinician line for those without state services.

We plan to update this entry upon market release and access to new information.

Dr. Riddle and Dr. Nathan are assistant professors in the department of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Richardson is a perinatal psychiatry fellow, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Rubinow is Distinguished Professor in the department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Meltzer-Brody is Assad Meymandi Distinguished Professor and Chair, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill.

References

Deligiannidis KM et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 30;84(1):22m14475. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14475.

Deligiannidis KM et al. . Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023 May;141(5S):64S-65S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000930588.16136.3f.

Deligiannidis KM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1;180(9):668-75. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

Deligiannidis KM et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 1;78(9):951-59. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559.

FDA Approves First Oral Treatment for Postpartum Depression. 2023 Aug 4. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-oral-treatment-postpartum-depression

ZURZUVAE – HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/217369s000lbl.pdf

TOPLINE:

The risk for dementia before age 90 years was significantly higher among people with a history of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
• The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
• Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
• Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
• Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”

SOURCE:

Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for dementia before age 90 years was significantly higher among people with a history of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
• The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
• Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
• Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
• Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”

SOURCE:

Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for dementia before age 90 years was significantly higher among people with a history of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
• The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
• Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
• Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
• Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”

SOURCE:

Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

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

CHICAGO—A new report offers a picture of patients seeking care for breast and gynecological cancers within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system: They are somewhat younger than their counterparts in the general population, and those with breast cancer are much more likely to be men.

            It is not clear whether these numbers are purely a reflection of the unique population within the VA or whether there is a more complicated explanation. Researchers also found that more than half of those with newly diagnosed breast, cervical, and ovarian cancers lived in the South compared with few (8%-13%) who lived in the Northeast.

The study findings were released in a poster at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Sarah Colonna, MD, study coauthor and medical director of breast oncology for the national VA, said in an interview that it is important to understand statistics regarding breast and gynecological cancer within the VA, especially as the system focuses more on patients with the conditions. And, she said, the wave of women who joined the military in recent decades are getting older and more likely to need oncology care. “We know women veterans are coming: They’re aging, and they’re going to get cancer.”

Colonna and colleagues examined statistics from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse to determine how many veterans were newly diagnosed with breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer in 2021 and 2022. The researchers compared their findings with 2020 statistics about the general population from the SEER database.

Within the VA, there were 3304 cases of breast cancer (mean age, 59 years; range, 23-99; mean body mass index [BMI], 31), 344 cases of cervical cancer (mean age, 46 years; range, 22-90; mean BMI, 29), 177 cases of ovarian cancer (mean age, 57 years; range, 24-80; mean BMI, 29), 365 cases of uterine cancer (mean age, 60 years; range, 24-85; mean BMI, 35), and 32 cases of vaginal/vulvar cancer (mean age, 56 years; range, 24-75; mean BMI, 31).

In contrast, the mean ages at diagnosis for the general population were slightly higher at 63 years for breast cancer, 50 years for cervical cancer, 63 years for ovarian cancer, and 63 years for uterine cancer. Vaginal/vulvar cancer was a bit of an outlier at mean age 69 years for the general population vs 56 years for the VA population; however, the number of cases in the latter group was quite low at 32 patients.

Overall, gynecological cancers were diagnosed at an average age of 55 years among the VA population vs 61 years among the general population. Men made up 11% of breast cancer cases in the VA vs 1% in the general population. “Of course, we have 10 times the proportion of men than in the outside,” said Colonna, an oncologist with the Huntsman Cancer Institute/Wahlen VA Medical Center in Utah. That may explain the difference, “but nobody knows for sure,” she said.

Patients Within the VA with the following cancers were more likely to be Black veterans than in the general population: breast, 30% vs 12%; cervical, 20% vs 14%; ovarian, 28% vs 10%; uterine, 25% vs 12%; and vaginal/vulvar, 44% vs 10%. This could reflect the fact that 30% of women treated within the VA are Black women vs 12% in the general population, Colonna said. Unfortunately, she said, “black women with breast cancer, tend to do really poorly. They tend to get it young, and they tend to die.”

As for the geographic distribution of cases, Colonna said it represents the high numbers of veterans who live in the South, suggesting that more VA oncology resources may be needed there.

In an interview, Aditi Hazra, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said the new analysis is “very valuable”: “Women are a growing proportion of the veterans who serve, and we need more data to understand the risk factors and incidents of disease in this population.” Hazra said the next step will be to control the data for risk factors and “tease out what is driving the rates in the VA.”

There is no study funding, and the authors have no disclosures. Dr. Hazra discloses that she works for the VA and has collaborated with one of the study authors. 

CHICAGO—A new report offers a picture of patients seeking care for breast and gynecological cancers within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system: They are somewhat younger than their counterparts in the general population, and those with breast cancer are much more likely to be men.

            It is not clear whether these numbers are purely a reflection of the unique population within the VA or whether there is a more complicated explanation. Researchers also found that more than half of those with newly diagnosed breast, cervical, and ovarian cancers lived in the South compared with few (8%-13%) who lived in the Northeast.

The study findings were released in a poster at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Sarah Colonna, MD, study coauthor and medical director of breast oncology for the national VA, said in an interview that it is important to understand statistics regarding breast and gynecological cancer within the VA, especially as the system focuses more on patients with the conditions. And, she said, the wave of women who joined the military in recent decades are getting older and more likely to need oncology care. “We know women veterans are coming: They’re aging, and they’re going to get cancer.”

Colonna and colleagues examined statistics from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse to determine how many veterans were newly diagnosed with breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer in 2021 and 2022. The researchers compared their findings with 2020 statistics about the general population from the SEER database.

Within the VA, there were 3304 cases of breast cancer (mean age, 59 years; range, 23-99; mean body mass index [BMI], 31), 344 cases of cervical cancer (mean age, 46 years; range, 22-90; mean BMI, 29), 177 cases of ovarian cancer (mean age, 57 years; range, 24-80; mean BMI, 29), 365 cases of uterine cancer (mean age, 60 years; range, 24-85; mean BMI, 35), and 32 cases of vaginal/vulvar cancer (mean age, 56 years; range, 24-75; mean BMI, 31).

In contrast, the mean ages at diagnosis for the general population were slightly higher at 63 years for breast cancer, 50 years for cervical cancer, 63 years for ovarian cancer, and 63 years for uterine cancer. Vaginal/vulvar cancer was a bit of an outlier at mean age 69 years for the general population vs 56 years for the VA population; however, the number of cases in the latter group was quite low at 32 patients.

Overall, gynecological cancers were diagnosed at an average age of 55 years among the VA population vs 61 years among the general population. Men made up 11% of breast cancer cases in the VA vs 1% in the general population. “Of course, we have 10 times the proportion of men than in the outside,” said Colonna, an oncologist with the Huntsman Cancer Institute/Wahlen VA Medical Center in Utah. That may explain the difference, “but nobody knows for sure,” she said.

Patients Within the VA with the following cancers were more likely to be Black veterans than in the general population: breast, 30% vs 12%; cervical, 20% vs 14%; ovarian, 28% vs 10%; uterine, 25% vs 12%; and vaginal/vulvar, 44% vs 10%. This could reflect the fact that 30% of women treated within the VA are Black women vs 12% in the general population, Colonna said. Unfortunately, she said, “black women with breast cancer, tend to do really poorly. They tend to get it young, and they tend to die.”

As for the geographic distribution of cases, Colonna said it represents the high numbers of veterans who live in the South, suggesting that more VA oncology resources may be needed there.

In an interview, Aditi Hazra, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said the new analysis is “very valuable”: “Women are a growing proportion of the veterans who serve, and we need more data to understand the risk factors and incidents of disease in this population.” Hazra said the next step will be to control the data for risk factors and “tease out what is driving the rates in the VA.”

There is no study funding, and the authors have no disclosures. Dr. Hazra discloses that she works for the VA and has collaborated with one of the study authors. 

CHICAGO—A new report offers a picture of patients seeking care for breast and gynecological cancers within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system: They are somewhat younger than their counterparts in the general population, and those with breast cancer are much more likely to be men.

            It is not clear whether these numbers are purely a reflection of the unique population within the VA or whether there is a more complicated explanation. Researchers also found that more than half of those with newly diagnosed breast, cervical, and ovarian cancers lived in the South compared with few (8%-13%) who lived in the Northeast.

The study findings were released in a poster at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Sarah Colonna, MD, study coauthor and medical director of breast oncology for the national VA, said in an interview that it is important to understand statistics regarding breast and gynecological cancer within the VA, especially as the system focuses more on patients with the conditions. And, she said, the wave of women who joined the military in recent decades are getting older and more likely to need oncology care. “We know women veterans are coming: They’re aging, and they’re going to get cancer.”

Colonna and colleagues examined statistics from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse to determine how many veterans were newly diagnosed with breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer in 2021 and 2022. The researchers compared their findings with 2020 statistics about the general population from the SEER database.

Within the VA, there were 3304 cases of breast cancer (mean age, 59 years; range, 23-99; mean body mass index [BMI], 31), 344 cases of cervical cancer (mean age, 46 years; range, 22-90; mean BMI, 29), 177 cases of ovarian cancer (mean age, 57 years; range, 24-80; mean BMI, 29), 365 cases of uterine cancer (mean age, 60 years; range, 24-85; mean BMI, 35), and 32 cases of vaginal/vulvar cancer (mean age, 56 years; range, 24-75; mean BMI, 31).

In contrast, the mean ages at diagnosis for the general population were slightly higher at 63 years for breast cancer, 50 years for cervical cancer, 63 years for ovarian cancer, and 63 years for uterine cancer. Vaginal/vulvar cancer was a bit of an outlier at mean age 69 years for the general population vs 56 years for the VA population; however, the number of cases in the latter group was quite low at 32 patients.

Overall, gynecological cancers were diagnosed at an average age of 55 years among the VA population vs 61 years among the general population. Men made up 11% of breast cancer cases in the VA vs 1% in the general population. “Of course, we have 10 times the proportion of men than in the outside,” said Colonna, an oncologist with the Huntsman Cancer Institute/Wahlen VA Medical Center in Utah. That may explain the difference, “but nobody knows for sure,” she said.

Patients Within the VA with the following cancers were more likely to be Black veterans than in the general population: breast, 30% vs 12%; cervical, 20% vs 14%; ovarian, 28% vs 10%; uterine, 25% vs 12%; and vaginal/vulvar, 44% vs 10%. This could reflect the fact that 30% of women treated within the VA are Black women vs 12% in the general population, Colonna said. Unfortunately, she said, “black women with breast cancer, tend to do really poorly. They tend to get it young, and they tend to die.”

As for the geographic distribution of cases, Colonna said it represents the high numbers of veterans who live in the South, suggesting that more VA oncology resources may be needed there.

In an interview, Aditi Hazra, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said the new analysis is “very valuable”: “Women are a growing proportion of the veterans who serve, and we need more data to understand the risk factors and incidents of disease in this population.” Hazra said the next step will be to control the data for risk factors and “tease out what is driving the rates in the VA.”

There is no study funding, and the authors have no disclosures. Dr. Hazra discloses that she works for the VA and has collaborated with one of the study authors. 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here in Amsterdam at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2023. Joining me for a great discussion is my friend Dr. Pam Taub, who is a cardiologist and a professor of medicine at UC San Diego. She has a particular interest in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), so that’s what we’ll be talking about today.

Thanks for joining me, Pam. When we think about POTS, for those who are not familiar with the term, what does it actually mean and how do you diagnose it?
 

No tilt table required

Pam R. Taub, MD: As you said, it’s postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. What that means is when somebody stands up, they have an elevation in their heart rate that is usually 30 points from when they’re lying down. That’s typically associated with symptoms such as lightheadedness, dizziness, and cognitive difficulties such as brain fog. The diagnosis can be made by tilt-table testing, but it can also be made in the office with simple orthostats.

In my clinic, I have people lie down for 3-5 minutes. At the end of that period, you get a heart rate and blood pressure. Then you have them stand up for 3-5 minutes and then get heart rate and blood pressure, and you look at the differences. If the heart rate goes up by 30 points – so maybe they’re 80 beats/min when they’re lying down and when they stand up, it goes to 110 beats/min  – that’s POTS, so very objective criteria. Typically, these people don’t have what we call orthostatic hypotension, where there is a significant decrease in the blood pressure. It’s more a heart rate issue.

Dr. O’Donoghue: How symptomatically do they usually present?

Dr. Taub: It’s a spectrum. Some people have mild symptoms. After they’re in the upright position for maybe 10 minutes, they get symptoms. There are some people who, when they go from a lying to standing position, they’re extremely symptomatic and can’t really do any activities. There are some people that are even wheelchair-bound because the symptoms are so debilitating. There’s a wide spectrum.

Dr. O’Donoghue: There has been more discussion, I feel like, about the rising prevalence of POTS as a diagnosis, and in particular since the COVID pandemic. What’s our understanding of the relationship between COVID and POTS and what the mechanism might be?

Dr. Taub: We’ve known that POTS can be triggered by a viral infection. Before COVID, we knew that in certain individuals that we think have an underlying genetic predisposition, usually some autoimmune substrate, when they get certain types of infections, whether it’s influenza or mononucleosis, they get POTS.

Typically, when they get an infection, they start getting deconditioned. They don’t feel well, so they’re on bed rest. When they get long periods of bed rest, when they start to become active, they start to have overactivation of their sympathetic nervous system, and they have a large amount of cardiovascular deconditioning. It’s a cycle that is often triggered after an infection.

A huge increase of POTS has been seen after COVID-19 because we had so many people exposed to this virus. With COVID-19, there is a period where people don’t feel great and they are getting bed rest, so they’re getting deconditioned. We’ve seen so many patients referred for post-COVID POTS and also long COVID or the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, where POTS is a part of that presentation.

Female sex and autoimmune conditions

Dr. O’Donoghue: We know that POTS seems to disproportionately affect women. Is that understood? Is it thought that that’s related to the perhaps the autoimmune component of that illness?

Dr. Taub: Yes. The theory is because women tend to have more autoimmune conditions, that’s why they’re more predisposed. There’s a large amount of genetic susceptibility. For instance, we know that there’s an association between POTS and conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and between POTS and mast cell activation. Some of those conditions are more prevalent in women as well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: I feel like many physicians don’t know how to manage POTS, and they’re actually a little fearful perhaps to take it on. Fortunately, there have been a growing number of POTS clinics with specialists that focus on that area. For the average practitioner who maybe can’t refer to a POTS clinic, how should they approach that?

Dr. Taub: The first thing is its diagnosis. When someone tells you that they have symptoms of orthostatic intolerance – so, activities that involve standing – you need to first have that on your differential diagnosis. You can make the diagnosis in the office with orthostats. You don’t need a tilt table. It’s sometimes helpful if you’re unsure about the diagnosis, but you can make the diagnosis.

Many times, you’re finding people that have very mild symptoms. You can treat that with some good lifestyle recommendations, such as increased hydration, increasing salt in their diet, and compression. And the exercise component is really important.

Many people with POTS are told to go exercise, go for a run, or go for a walk. That’s incorrect, because these people have symptoms when they’re in the upright position. The type of exercise they need to do initially is exercise in the lying or seated position – so exercises like rowing or a seated bike, and strength training. As they start to feel better, then they can do upright exercise.

You should never tell a person that has POTS to just initially start with upright exercise, because they’re going to feel so much worse and then they’re never going to want to exercise. It’s really important to give them the right exercise recommendations. I find that for many of these mild cases, if they do the right exercise and engage in the right lifestyle strategies, they get better.

Compression wear and drug therapy

Dr. O’Donoghue: When it comes to compression stockings, do you usually start with a particular length?

Dr. Taub: It’s interesting. There are many different compression stockings, medical grade. Through patients with POTS, I’ve gotten feedback on certain types of athletic wear that have built-in compression, and that’s a little bit easier for people to wear every day because they can do their errands and it doesn’t look like they’re wearing medical-grade compression stockings.

Basically, I’ve collected all the different recommendations that patients say help, and I give them a list. The medical-grade compression stockings sometimes are very challenging to put on, and sometimes people just need light compression or even just socks. Any kind of compression is going to help.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s a great tip, because I know there are many patients who refuse to wear the compression stockings. If there’s a fashionable alternative, that’s always good to reach for.

Dr. Taub: Another thing that patients have told me is that abdominal compression is also very helpful. There are many commercially available abdominal compression options, like shapewear. Many patients with POTS use that and that helps, too.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Good. For those patients with POTS that is refractory to the measures you’ve already discussed, what are the next steps after that?

Dr. Taub: Pharmacotherapy is very synergistic with lifestyle, and there are many different pharmacotherapy options. One of the first things that you want to think about is lowering that heart rate. The reason people feel horrible is because their heart rate is usually very high when they’re upright. If they’re upright for long periods of time and they’re having very high heart rates, they’re going to get really tired because it’s like they’re exercising for hours when they’re upright.

Heart rate lowering is the cornerstone of therapy. Traditionally, we’ve used beta-blockers for heart rate lowering. The problem is they also lower blood pressure. They can also cause fatigue, so not the ideal agent for patients with POTS.

One of the clinical trials that I led was with a drug called ivabradine, which selectively works on the SA node and decreases heart rate without affecting blood pressure. What’s really elegant about ivabradine is it has a more potent effect when the heart rate is higher. When the patient is standing, it’s going to have a more potent effect on heart rate lowering. It’s really well tolerated in patients with POTS. In our study, we showed an improvement in quality of life metrics. That’s one of the first-line drugs that I use for patients with POTS.

The other thing is some of them will also have a concomitant lowering of blood pressure. You can think about medications that increase blood pressure, like midodrine, fludrocortisone, and droxidopa. Sometimes that combination of a heart rate-lowering medication and a medication that increases blood pressure really works well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s very helpful. I think that those kinds of practical tips are the ones that practitioners really want to reach for, because they need to have that algorithm in their mind to take on this condition. Thanks again for walking us through that.

I think it’s a very interesting space, and there’s more that we’re going to be learning over the next few years as we further flesh out these post-COVID cases and what we learn from that as well.

Dr. Taub: There are many clinical trials now starting in POTS, so it’s exciting.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Absolutely. Thank you again for joining me today. Signing off, this is Dr Michelle O’Donoghue.