User login
Prior autoimmunity does not predict adverse events of alemtuzumab
a new study has shown.
These latest data were reported by Alasdair J. Coles, MD, University of Cambridge (England), at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.
Dr. Coles, who led the initial research to develop alemtuzumab in partnership with Genzyme, explained that autoimmune disease is a well-described and common adverse event with the drug, manifesting mainly as autoimmune thyroid events that can occur in up to 40% of patients.
But as postmarketing experience has grown, it has become clear that there is a low frequency of more serious autoimmune disease, he noted. In an effort to understand this better, regulators have suggested that the presence of non–multiple sclerosis (MS) autoimmune disease before alemtuzumab treatment and the emergence of autoimmune disease after alemtuzumab treatment may define a group that is at higher risk of one of the rare but serious autoimmune events for those on the drug.
To investigate if this was the case, Dr. Coles and colleagues analyzed data on 1,216 patients who received alemtuzumab in the clinical development program. Of these, 96 had preexisting non-MS autoimmunity.
Results showed that up to 9 years after alemtuzumab initiation, the percentage of patients with new autoimmune disease was similar in those with (35.4%) versus without (35.3%) preexisting autoimmunity.
Similar percentages of patients with versus without preexisting autoimmunity had two or more new autoimmune events (5.2% vs. 8.2%, respectively). And most patients with thyroid disorders at baseline did not experience new autoimmunity after alemtuzumab.
In addition, treatment-emergent thyroid autoimmunity after the first alemtuzumab course was not associated with subsequent nonthyroid autoimmunity after the second course. Similarly, thyroid autoimmunity after the second course did not predict non-thyroid autoimmunity after the third course.
In another analysis of the incidence of serious autoimmune events from postmarketing data on 25,292 patients treated with alemtuzumab, immune thrombocytopenic purpura was reported in 43 patients, newly identified autoimmune hepatitis in 11 patients, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in 9 patients.
There was “no hint at all” that baseline thyroid disorders or postalemtuzumab thyroid disorders are associated with increased risk of these serious autoimmune adverse events, Dr. Coles said.
He calculated that the incidence of serious autoimmune diseases that could be life-threatening after alemtuzumab treatment was 10.7 per 10,000 patients treated for autoimmune hepatitis and 2.7 per 10,000 patients treated for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“From two separate data sources – phase 2/3 trials populations combined and postmarketing data – there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that preexisting non-MS autoimmunity predisposes to the serious but rare autoimmune events that have newly been described, nor does thyroid autoimmunity following the use of alemtuzumab,” Dr. Coles stated.
“In my opinion it is not appropriate to preclude the use of alemtuzumab to patients who have had previous autoimmune disease before treatment or who develop thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab,” he said.
“It remains in my view a reasonable treatment option for patients with active MS to receive this highly effective therapy in the face of well-managed, well-understood thyroid autoimmunity and the very unlikely, rare, but serious autoimmune disease,” he concluded.
Risk stratification
Commenting on the presentation, Robert J. Fox, MD, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, explained that, whenever there is a serious risk of a complication, clinicians like to try to stratify that risk.
“We like to identify those at higher risk [and perhaps not use the therapy] and those at lower risk [and perhaps consider more likely the use of that therapy],” he said.
With regard to alemtuzumab, Dr. Fox noted: “We’d like to stratify the risk of autoimmune complications, which could help guide us regarding the patients in whom therapy may be safer. Unfortunately, these findings did not point to a risk stratification to help guide its use towards lower-risk patients.
“I view this as an unfortunate result, because it leaves me without a way to stratify the risks of alemtuzumab, which are quite significant and currently limit my use of that MS therapy only to those with no other treatment options,” he added.
On Dr. Coles’ view of alemtuzumab as a “reasonable” treatment option, Dr. Fox commented: “I guess it depends upon how that’s interpreted. Given the risks of serious, life-threatening immune and infectious complications, I only consider alemtuzumab when all other immune-modulating therapies have been tried or are not a reasonable treatment option. So, yes, I see it as ‘reasonable,’ but only when there are no other available treatment options.”
The current work was supported by Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare. Dr. Coles reported sitting on advisory boards for Genzyme (Sanofi). He is credited as an inventor on several patents related to the technology on which alemtuzumab is based. Dr. Fox has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study has shown.
These latest data were reported by Alasdair J. Coles, MD, University of Cambridge (England), at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.
Dr. Coles, who led the initial research to develop alemtuzumab in partnership with Genzyme, explained that autoimmune disease is a well-described and common adverse event with the drug, manifesting mainly as autoimmune thyroid events that can occur in up to 40% of patients.
But as postmarketing experience has grown, it has become clear that there is a low frequency of more serious autoimmune disease, he noted. In an effort to understand this better, regulators have suggested that the presence of non–multiple sclerosis (MS) autoimmune disease before alemtuzumab treatment and the emergence of autoimmune disease after alemtuzumab treatment may define a group that is at higher risk of one of the rare but serious autoimmune events for those on the drug.
To investigate if this was the case, Dr. Coles and colleagues analyzed data on 1,216 patients who received alemtuzumab in the clinical development program. Of these, 96 had preexisting non-MS autoimmunity.
Results showed that up to 9 years after alemtuzumab initiation, the percentage of patients with new autoimmune disease was similar in those with (35.4%) versus without (35.3%) preexisting autoimmunity.
Similar percentages of patients with versus without preexisting autoimmunity had two or more new autoimmune events (5.2% vs. 8.2%, respectively). And most patients with thyroid disorders at baseline did not experience new autoimmunity after alemtuzumab.
In addition, treatment-emergent thyroid autoimmunity after the first alemtuzumab course was not associated with subsequent nonthyroid autoimmunity after the second course. Similarly, thyroid autoimmunity after the second course did not predict non-thyroid autoimmunity after the third course.
In another analysis of the incidence of serious autoimmune events from postmarketing data on 25,292 patients treated with alemtuzumab, immune thrombocytopenic purpura was reported in 43 patients, newly identified autoimmune hepatitis in 11 patients, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in 9 patients.
There was “no hint at all” that baseline thyroid disorders or postalemtuzumab thyroid disorders are associated with increased risk of these serious autoimmune adverse events, Dr. Coles said.
He calculated that the incidence of serious autoimmune diseases that could be life-threatening after alemtuzumab treatment was 10.7 per 10,000 patients treated for autoimmune hepatitis and 2.7 per 10,000 patients treated for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“From two separate data sources – phase 2/3 trials populations combined and postmarketing data – there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that preexisting non-MS autoimmunity predisposes to the serious but rare autoimmune events that have newly been described, nor does thyroid autoimmunity following the use of alemtuzumab,” Dr. Coles stated.
“In my opinion it is not appropriate to preclude the use of alemtuzumab to patients who have had previous autoimmune disease before treatment or who develop thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab,” he said.
“It remains in my view a reasonable treatment option for patients with active MS to receive this highly effective therapy in the face of well-managed, well-understood thyroid autoimmunity and the very unlikely, rare, but serious autoimmune disease,” he concluded.
Risk stratification
Commenting on the presentation, Robert J. Fox, MD, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, explained that, whenever there is a serious risk of a complication, clinicians like to try to stratify that risk.
“We like to identify those at higher risk [and perhaps not use the therapy] and those at lower risk [and perhaps consider more likely the use of that therapy],” he said.
With regard to alemtuzumab, Dr. Fox noted: “We’d like to stratify the risk of autoimmune complications, which could help guide us regarding the patients in whom therapy may be safer. Unfortunately, these findings did not point to a risk stratification to help guide its use towards lower-risk patients.
“I view this as an unfortunate result, because it leaves me without a way to stratify the risks of alemtuzumab, which are quite significant and currently limit my use of that MS therapy only to those with no other treatment options,” he added.
On Dr. Coles’ view of alemtuzumab as a “reasonable” treatment option, Dr. Fox commented: “I guess it depends upon how that’s interpreted. Given the risks of serious, life-threatening immune and infectious complications, I only consider alemtuzumab when all other immune-modulating therapies have been tried or are not a reasonable treatment option. So, yes, I see it as ‘reasonable,’ but only when there are no other available treatment options.”
The current work was supported by Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare. Dr. Coles reported sitting on advisory boards for Genzyme (Sanofi). He is credited as an inventor on several patents related to the technology on which alemtuzumab is based. Dr. Fox has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study has shown.
These latest data were reported by Alasdair J. Coles, MD, University of Cambridge (England), at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.
Dr. Coles, who led the initial research to develop alemtuzumab in partnership with Genzyme, explained that autoimmune disease is a well-described and common adverse event with the drug, manifesting mainly as autoimmune thyroid events that can occur in up to 40% of patients.
But as postmarketing experience has grown, it has become clear that there is a low frequency of more serious autoimmune disease, he noted. In an effort to understand this better, regulators have suggested that the presence of non–multiple sclerosis (MS) autoimmune disease before alemtuzumab treatment and the emergence of autoimmune disease after alemtuzumab treatment may define a group that is at higher risk of one of the rare but serious autoimmune events for those on the drug.
To investigate if this was the case, Dr. Coles and colleagues analyzed data on 1,216 patients who received alemtuzumab in the clinical development program. Of these, 96 had preexisting non-MS autoimmunity.
Results showed that up to 9 years after alemtuzumab initiation, the percentage of patients with new autoimmune disease was similar in those with (35.4%) versus without (35.3%) preexisting autoimmunity.
Similar percentages of patients with versus without preexisting autoimmunity had two or more new autoimmune events (5.2% vs. 8.2%, respectively). And most patients with thyroid disorders at baseline did not experience new autoimmunity after alemtuzumab.
In addition, treatment-emergent thyroid autoimmunity after the first alemtuzumab course was not associated with subsequent nonthyroid autoimmunity after the second course. Similarly, thyroid autoimmunity after the second course did not predict non-thyroid autoimmunity after the third course.
In another analysis of the incidence of serious autoimmune events from postmarketing data on 25,292 patients treated with alemtuzumab, immune thrombocytopenic purpura was reported in 43 patients, newly identified autoimmune hepatitis in 11 patients, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in 9 patients.
There was “no hint at all” that baseline thyroid disorders or postalemtuzumab thyroid disorders are associated with increased risk of these serious autoimmune adverse events, Dr. Coles said.
He calculated that the incidence of serious autoimmune diseases that could be life-threatening after alemtuzumab treatment was 10.7 per 10,000 patients treated for autoimmune hepatitis and 2.7 per 10,000 patients treated for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“From two separate data sources – phase 2/3 trials populations combined and postmarketing data – there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that preexisting non-MS autoimmunity predisposes to the serious but rare autoimmune events that have newly been described, nor does thyroid autoimmunity following the use of alemtuzumab,” Dr. Coles stated.
“In my opinion it is not appropriate to preclude the use of alemtuzumab to patients who have had previous autoimmune disease before treatment or who develop thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab,” he said.
“It remains in my view a reasonable treatment option for patients with active MS to receive this highly effective therapy in the face of well-managed, well-understood thyroid autoimmunity and the very unlikely, rare, but serious autoimmune disease,” he concluded.
Risk stratification
Commenting on the presentation, Robert J. Fox, MD, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, explained that, whenever there is a serious risk of a complication, clinicians like to try to stratify that risk.
“We like to identify those at higher risk [and perhaps not use the therapy] and those at lower risk [and perhaps consider more likely the use of that therapy],” he said.
With regard to alemtuzumab, Dr. Fox noted: “We’d like to stratify the risk of autoimmune complications, which could help guide us regarding the patients in whom therapy may be safer. Unfortunately, these findings did not point to a risk stratification to help guide its use towards lower-risk patients.
“I view this as an unfortunate result, because it leaves me without a way to stratify the risks of alemtuzumab, which are quite significant and currently limit my use of that MS therapy only to those with no other treatment options,” he added.
On Dr. Coles’ view of alemtuzumab as a “reasonable” treatment option, Dr. Fox commented: “I guess it depends upon how that’s interpreted. Given the risks of serious, life-threatening immune and infectious complications, I only consider alemtuzumab when all other immune-modulating therapies have been tried or are not a reasonable treatment option. So, yes, I see it as ‘reasonable,’ but only when there are no other available treatment options.”
The current work was supported by Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare. Dr. Coles reported sitting on advisory boards for Genzyme (Sanofi). He is credited as an inventor on several patents related to the technology on which alemtuzumab is based. Dr. Fox has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MSVIRTUAL2020
Reassuring rheumatic disease patients on value of bisphosphonates
“When we think about bisphosphonates, we have to think about whether they are good players or bad players,” Marcy B. Bolster, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Although bisphosphonates are a first-line treatment for many patients to reduce fracture risk, rheumatology patients have distinct concerns about these medications, said Dr. Bolster, who is director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Training Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and medical lead for the Fracture Liaison Service there.
She shared her insights on four questions most often asked by patients in her practice:
How long do I need to take this medication?
When discussing bisphosphonates with a patient for the first time, “I typically start with the benefits, and include the risks,” she said. “Then I outline my plans for treatment, which would include treatment duration.”
Setting expectations with the patient about planned duration of therapy, reviewing risks and benefits, and preparing to be flexible if changes are needed can help relieve patients’ concerns, she said.
For example, in a hypothetical case of a 69-year-old woman with a 17% chance of a major osteoporotic fracture and 3.8% chance of hip fracture in the next 10 years based on FRAX scores, Dr. Bolster said she would treat with alendronate or zoledronic acid.
Duration must be a clinical decision individualized to the patient, she noted. Research studies support that some patients benefit from a longer duration of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-Term Extension, which included 1,099 women, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures significantly declined with 10 years of alendronate treatment, compared with 5 years of treatment, she said.
In the HORIZON trial of 1,233 postmenopausal women, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in those treated with IV zoledronic acid for 6 years versus those treated for 3 years. These studies support that patients at particularly high risk for vertebral fractures may benefit from a longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy, she said.
What should I know about infusion side effects?
Infusion side effects remain a concern, and the acute phase reaction of zoledronic acid occurs in about 30% of patients, but most of these are mild and not recurring, Dr. Bolster said. “I tell patients that 90% report mild to moderate infusion side effects, and that it usually occurs only with the first infusion,” she noted.
To potentially prevent an acute-phase reaction, Dr. Bolster has advised patients to take acetaminophen prior to infusion. “I would tend to recommend acetaminophen over NSAIDs to avoid gastric and renal toxicities,” she said.
“Determining the risks of atypical femoral fractures are challenging” but are another potential side effect that worries patients, she said. An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a femur fracture in the proximal third of the shaft, she said.
AFF may occur in patients with osteoporosis even in the absence of bisphosphonate use, Dr. Bolster noted. However, AFF “may occur at increased frequency in those patients with osteoporosis and prolonged bisphosphonate use,” she said. AFF is rare overall, and known risk factors include Asian race (in North America), as well as femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use, she said.
A 2019 meta-analysis favored fracture prevention benefits over potential risk associated with bisphosphonate use. Predicting the risk of AFF remains difficult given several factors, including the low incidence of AFF, the unavailability of radiographs in all studies, not accounting for potential confounding by indication in some studies, and lack of adjustment for low bone mineral density or fracture risk, she added.
Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been linked to bisphosphonate use, and some patients ask about it, Dr. Bolster said. Current data show an incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 in patients with osteoporosis, while the incidence in the general population is 1 in 100,000, she noted. The highest risk is associated with use of IV bisphosphonates, although it does occur in patients on oral bisphosphonates and denosumab (Prolia), she added. Given the relatively low risk, the American Dental Association states that there is “no need to discontinue bisphosphonates prior to procedures.” Based on current evidence, bisphosphonate treatment outweighs the low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients in need of osteoporosis treatment because of the high risk of fragility fractures in the osteoporosis population, she emphasized.
When will I need another dual x-ray absorptiometry scan?
Osteoporosis develops in fewer than 10% of older postmenopausal women using a 15-year screening interval for those with normal bone mineral density or mild osteopenia at an initial scan, with T-scores of –1.49 or higher, she noted. Therefore, the need for repeat dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans should be individualized, so some patients with normal bone density or osteopenia and few comorbidities and risk factors for osteoporosis may not need frequent DXA scans, she added.
Although little evidence exists to specifically demonstrate the value of monitoring bone mineral density during a 5-year drug treatment period, as is noted by the American College of Physicians 2017 clinical practice guideline published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Bolster said that a DXA scan showing loss of bone mineral density during treatment could indicate incorrect drug use or noncompliance, or a secondary cause for bone loss that may otherwise go unnoticed. For IV zoledronic acid in particular, a DXA scan at 3-4 years can determine whether a drug holiday is warranted, or for patients with severe osteoporosis, whether another 3 years of treatment is necessary. She suggested considering a DXA scan at 2-3 years with alendronate and at 3-4 years with IV zoledronic acid.
Will I need a new medication if I fracture while on treatment?
For patients who ask whether to change medications following a new fracture, Dr. Bolster said it is important to evaluate the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen and also consider the presence of secondary causes of bone loss. Consideration can be given to keeping the patient on the same regimen because osteoporosis treatment regimens have demonstrated a 50%-70% fracture-risk reduction so they do not prevent all fractures, she said. “It is therefore reasonable, after confirming compliance and ruling out secondary causes of bone loss, to keep a patient on the same regimen following a fracture. For patients using denosumab, there is an increased risk of rapid bone loss and sustaining multiple vertebral fracture with missed doses or discontinuation,” she said.
It is important to evaluate patients who fracture while on therapy for secondary causes of bone loss, assess compliance, and consider strategies such as modifying the route of administration, seeking a different mechanism of action, or continuing on the same regimen, Dr. Bolster noted.
Dr. Bolster disclosed participation in clinical trials for Corbus, Cumberland, and Genentech, as well as research grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. She also disclosed serving on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Clinical Learning Designs, serving on the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Marketing and Communications, and holding investments in Johnson & Johnson.
Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
“When we think about bisphosphonates, we have to think about whether they are good players or bad players,” Marcy B. Bolster, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Although bisphosphonates are a first-line treatment for many patients to reduce fracture risk, rheumatology patients have distinct concerns about these medications, said Dr. Bolster, who is director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Training Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and medical lead for the Fracture Liaison Service there.
She shared her insights on four questions most often asked by patients in her practice:
How long do I need to take this medication?
When discussing bisphosphonates with a patient for the first time, “I typically start with the benefits, and include the risks,” she said. “Then I outline my plans for treatment, which would include treatment duration.”
Setting expectations with the patient about planned duration of therapy, reviewing risks and benefits, and preparing to be flexible if changes are needed can help relieve patients’ concerns, she said.
For example, in a hypothetical case of a 69-year-old woman with a 17% chance of a major osteoporotic fracture and 3.8% chance of hip fracture in the next 10 years based on FRAX scores, Dr. Bolster said she would treat with alendronate or zoledronic acid.
Duration must be a clinical decision individualized to the patient, she noted. Research studies support that some patients benefit from a longer duration of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-Term Extension, which included 1,099 women, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures significantly declined with 10 years of alendronate treatment, compared with 5 years of treatment, she said.
In the HORIZON trial of 1,233 postmenopausal women, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in those treated with IV zoledronic acid for 6 years versus those treated for 3 years. These studies support that patients at particularly high risk for vertebral fractures may benefit from a longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy, she said.
What should I know about infusion side effects?
Infusion side effects remain a concern, and the acute phase reaction of zoledronic acid occurs in about 30% of patients, but most of these are mild and not recurring, Dr. Bolster said. “I tell patients that 90% report mild to moderate infusion side effects, and that it usually occurs only with the first infusion,” she noted.
To potentially prevent an acute-phase reaction, Dr. Bolster has advised patients to take acetaminophen prior to infusion. “I would tend to recommend acetaminophen over NSAIDs to avoid gastric and renal toxicities,” she said.
“Determining the risks of atypical femoral fractures are challenging” but are another potential side effect that worries patients, she said. An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a femur fracture in the proximal third of the shaft, she said.
AFF may occur in patients with osteoporosis even in the absence of bisphosphonate use, Dr. Bolster noted. However, AFF “may occur at increased frequency in those patients with osteoporosis and prolonged bisphosphonate use,” she said. AFF is rare overall, and known risk factors include Asian race (in North America), as well as femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use, she said.
A 2019 meta-analysis favored fracture prevention benefits over potential risk associated with bisphosphonate use. Predicting the risk of AFF remains difficult given several factors, including the low incidence of AFF, the unavailability of radiographs in all studies, not accounting for potential confounding by indication in some studies, and lack of adjustment for low bone mineral density or fracture risk, she added.
Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been linked to bisphosphonate use, and some patients ask about it, Dr. Bolster said. Current data show an incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 in patients with osteoporosis, while the incidence in the general population is 1 in 100,000, she noted. The highest risk is associated with use of IV bisphosphonates, although it does occur in patients on oral bisphosphonates and denosumab (Prolia), she added. Given the relatively low risk, the American Dental Association states that there is “no need to discontinue bisphosphonates prior to procedures.” Based on current evidence, bisphosphonate treatment outweighs the low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients in need of osteoporosis treatment because of the high risk of fragility fractures in the osteoporosis population, she emphasized.
When will I need another dual x-ray absorptiometry scan?
Osteoporosis develops in fewer than 10% of older postmenopausal women using a 15-year screening interval for those with normal bone mineral density or mild osteopenia at an initial scan, with T-scores of –1.49 or higher, she noted. Therefore, the need for repeat dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans should be individualized, so some patients with normal bone density or osteopenia and few comorbidities and risk factors for osteoporosis may not need frequent DXA scans, she added.
Although little evidence exists to specifically demonstrate the value of monitoring bone mineral density during a 5-year drug treatment period, as is noted by the American College of Physicians 2017 clinical practice guideline published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Bolster said that a DXA scan showing loss of bone mineral density during treatment could indicate incorrect drug use or noncompliance, or a secondary cause for bone loss that may otherwise go unnoticed. For IV zoledronic acid in particular, a DXA scan at 3-4 years can determine whether a drug holiday is warranted, or for patients with severe osteoporosis, whether another 3 years of treatment is necessary. She suggested considering a DXA scan at 2-3 years with alendronate and at 3-4 years with IV zoledronic acid.
Will I need a new medication if I fracture while on treatment?
For patients who ask whether to change medications following a new fracture, Dr. Bolster said it is important to evaluate the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen and also consider the presence of secondary causes of bone loss. Consideration can be given to keeping the patient on the same regimen because osteoporosis treatment regimens have demonstrated a 50%-70% fracture-risk reduction so they do not prevent all fractures, she said. “It is therefore reasonable, after confirming compliance and ruling out secondary causes of bone loss, to keep a patient on the same regimen following a fracture. For patients using denosumab, there is an increased risk of rapid bone loss and sustaining multiple vertebral fracture with missed doses or discontinuation,” she said.
It is important to evaluate patients who fracture while on therapy for secondary causes of bone loss, assess compliance, and consider strategies such as modifying the route of administration, seeking a different mechanism of action, or continuing on the same regimen, Dr. Bolster noted.
Dr. Bolster disclosed participation in clinical trials for Corbus, Cumberland, and Genentech, as well as research grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. She also disclosed serving on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Clinical Learning Designs, serving on the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Marketing and Communications, and holding investments in Johnson & Johnson.
Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
“When we think about bisphosphonates, we have to think about whether they are good players or bad players,” Marcy B. Bolster, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Although bisphosphonates are a first-line treatment for many patients to reduce fracture risk, rheumatology patients have distinct concerns about these medications, said Dr. Bolster, who is director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Training Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and medical lead for the Fracture Liaison Service there.
She shared her insights on four questions most often asked by patients in her practice:
How long do I need to take this medication?
When discussing bisphosphonates with a patient for the first time, “I typically start with the benefits, and include the risks,” she said. “Then I outline my plans for treatment, which would include treatment duration.”
Setting expectations with the patient about planned duration of therapy, reviewing risks and benefits, and preparing to be flexible if changes are needed can help relieve patients’ concerns, she said.
For example, in a hypothetical case of a 69-year-old woman with a 17% chance of a major osteoporotic fracture and 3.8% chance of hip fracture in the next 10 years based on FRAX scores, Dr. Bolster said she would treat with alendronate or zoledronic acid.
Duration must be a clinical decision individualized to the patient, she noted. Research studies support that some patients benefit from a longer duration of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-Term Extension, which included 1,099 women, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures significantly declined with 10 years of alendronate treatment, compared with 5 years of treatment, she said.
In the HORIZON trial of 1,233 postmenopausal women, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in those treated with IV zoledronic acid for 6 years versus those treated for 3 years. These studies support that patients at particularly high risk for vertebral fractures may benefit from a longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy, she said.
What should I know about infusion side effects?
Infusion side effects remain a concern, and the acute phase reaction of zoledronic acid occurs in about 30% of patients, but most of these are mild and not recurring, Dr. Bolster said. “I tell patients that 90% report mild to moderate infusion side effects, and that it usually occurs only with the first infusion,” she noted.
To potentially prevent an acute-phase reaction, Dr. Bolster has advised patients to take acetaminophen prior to infusion. “I would tend to recommend acetaminophen over NSAIDs to avoid gastric and renal toxicities,” she said.
“Determining the risks of atypical femoral fractures are challenging” but are another potential side effect that worries patients, she said. An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a femur fracture in the proximal third of the shaft, she said.
AFF may occur in patients with osteoporosis even in the absence of bisphosphonate use, Dr. Bolster noted. However, AFF “may occur at increased frequency in those patients with osteoporosis and prolonged bisphosphonate use,” she said. AFF is rare overall, and known risk factors include Asian race (in North America), as well as femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use, she said.
A 2019 meta-analysis favored fracture prevention benefits over potential risk associated with bisphosphonate use. Predicting the risk of AFF remains difficult given several factors, including the low incidence of AFF, the unavailability of radiographs in all studies, not accounting for potential confounding by indication in some studies, and lack of adjustment for low bone mineral density or fracture risk, she added.
Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been linked to bisphosphonate use, and some patients ask about it, Dr. Bolster said. Current data show an incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 in patients with osteoporosis, while the incidence in the general population is 1 in 100,000, she noted. The highest risk is associated with use of IV bisphosphonates, although it does occur in patients on oral bisphosphonates and denosumab (Prolia), she added. Given the relatively low risk, the American Dental Association states that there is “no need to discontinue bisphosphonates prior to procedures.” Based on current evidence, bisphosphonate treatment outweighs the low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients in need of osteoporosis treatment because of the high risk of fragility fractures in the osteoporosis population, she emphasized.
When will I need another dual x-ray absorptiometry scan?
Osteoporosis develops in fewer than 10% of older postmenopausal women using a 15-year screening interval for those with normal bone mineral density or mild osteopenia at an initial scan, with T-scores of –1.49 or higher, she noted. Therefore, the need for repeat dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans should be individualized, so some patients with normal bone density or osteopenia and few comorbidities and risk factors for osteoporosis may not need frequent DXA scans, she added.
Although little evidence exists to specifically demonstrate the value of monitoring bone mineral density during a 5-year drug treatment period, as is noted by the American College of Physicians 2017 clinical practice guideline published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Bolster said that a DXA scan showing loss of bone mineral density during treatment could indicate incorrect drug use or noncompliance, or a secondary cause for bone loss that may otherwise go unnoticed. For IV zoledronic acid in particular, a DXA scan at 3-4 years can determine whether a drug holiday is warranted, or for patients with severe osteoporosis, whether another 3 years of treatment is necessary. She suggested considering a DXA scan at 2-3 years with alendronate and at 3-4 years with IV zoledronic acid.
Will I need a new medication if I fracture while on treatment?
For patients who ask whether to change medications following a new fracture, Dr. Bolster said it is important to evaluate the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen and also consider the presence of secondary causes of bone loss. Consideration can be given to keeping the patient on the same regimen because osteoporosis treatment regimens have demonstrated a 50%-70% fracture-risk reduction so they do not prevent all fractures, she said. “It is therefore reasonable, after confirming compliance and ruling out secondary causes of bone loss, to keep a patient on the same regimen following a fracture. For patients using denosumab, there is an increased risk of rapid bone loss and sustaining multiple vertebral fracture with missed doses or discontinuation,” she said.
It is important to evaluate patients who fracture while on therapy for secondary causes of bone loss, assess compliance, and consider strategies such as modifying the route of administration, seeking a different mechanism of action, or continuing on the same regimen, Dr. Bolster noted.
Dr. Bolster disclosed participation in clinical trials for Corbus, Cumberland, and Genentech, as well as research grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. She also disclosed serving on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Clinical Learning Designs, serving on the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Marketing and Communications, and holding investments in Johnson & Johnson.
Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM PRD 2020
B-cell test predicts alemtuzumab autoimmunity in MS
a new study suggests.
“Alemtuzumab has proven to be an effective treatment for patients with highly active remitting relapsing MS, but adverse events may limit the use of this drug, particularly autoimmune adverse events, which are the most prevalent, occurring in about 30% of patients. Reliable biomarkers to assess patient risk for developing this complication would be of great importance,” said lead author Paulette Walo, MD.
“Our results suggest that a higher percentage of total B cells, and in particular plasmablasts, could be a very predictive biomarker for autoimmunity after alemtuzumab treatment. This could help us in choosing the patients for this drug,” said Dr. Walo, an immunologist at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid. She presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.
The objective of this study was to explore if patient blood lymphocyte profile before alemtuzumab treatment initiation can identify patients with an increased risk of developing later autoimmunity, Dr. Walo explained.
The study included 54 patients from five hospitals throughout Spain who had received treatment with alemtuzumab. Of these, the vast majority had received the normal two-dose cycle and two patients had received a third dose because of worsening MS activity.
Blood samples were collected before initiating treatment with alemtuzumab. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained and cryopreserved. Leukocyte populations were assessed by flow cytometry.
Autoimmune adverse events were defined as the development, at any point within 2 years of follow-up, of any autoimmune thyroid-associated event, immune thrombocytopenia, and/or autoimmune nephropathy.
Over the 2 years of follow-up, 14 patients (25.9%) experienced autoimmune adverse events, all of which were dysthyroidism. No immune thrombocytopenia or nephropathies were observed.
No statistical differences were found in clinical and demographic characteristics between patients who developed autoimmune adverse events and those who did not. Previous treatments did not influence B-cell percentages.
Analysis of blood lymphocyte profiles showed no difference in T-cell subsets between those who had an autoimmune event and those who did not.
Still, there were important differences in the B-cell profile, Dr. Walo said. “Total B cells were higher in patients who had an autoimmune event mainly due to naive B cells and plasmablasts.”
Patients who experienced autoimmune adverse events before treatment onset had a higher percentage of blood CD19+ B cells (P = .001), with a higher relative percentage of naive B cells and plasmablasts.
When individual types of cell numbers were explored, only plasmablast levels remained significant (P = .02).
The researchers calculated a CD19+ B-cell predictive value for autoimmunity of 7.6%. If patients had more than 7.6% B cells, they were at higher risk of an autoimmune adverse event after alemtuzumab treatment versus those with lower levels (odds ratio, 14.67; P ≤ .0001).
Similarly, the predictive value for plasmablasts was 0.13%. If patients had levels higher than 0.13% they had a higher risk of an autoimmune event after alemtuzumab treatment (P = .002). Plasmablasts are a category of B cells which are very differentiated and have the capacity to produce antibodies; they are a very active and aggressive subtype of B cells, Dr. Walo noted.
She explained that, as was the case in this study, autoimmune events after alemtuzumab treatment normally manifests as the development of antibodies against the thyroid gland, with the development of either hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, necessitating long-term treatment to manage these conditions.
“Autoimmunity develops at variable timescales. It can appear in the first year after alemtuzumab treatment but it can also appear later on,” she said.
Dr. Walo’s group is hoping to validate their results in a larger study. “This is only a small study so we need to replicate these findings in a larger cohort. We are in the process of doing this, collaborating with other hospitals,” she commented.
She said that, if the results are validated, then patients could undergo blood tests before alemtuzumab treatment to analyze their B-cell counts.
“For those with high levels of B cells – and particularly plasmablasts – alemtuzumab may not be the best treatment to choose,” Dr. Walo said.
Personalized strategy
During the postpresentation discussion, the suggestion was raised of giving an anti–B-cell drug before alemtuzumab to try and prevent autoimmunity. Dr. Walo responded that this is a possibility. “This is something that we are going to look into. If our larger study validates our initial results, then we would plan a study to give an anti–B-cell treatment such as rituximab before alemtuzumab and see whether this reduces the risk of autoimmunity.”
Commenting on the study, session comoderator Darin Okuda, MD, professor in the department of neurology and neurotherapeutics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said: “This is an intriguing approach and suggests a more personalized strategy for sure if we can identify patients who are at higher risk of developing autoimmunity.”
Also commenting, ACTRIMS president Jeffrey Cohen, MD, said: “One of the main drawbacks of alemtuzumab is the risk of antibody-mediated autoimmune conditions, so the ability to predict who is at risk for autoimmune adverse events prior to initiating alemtuzumab would be useful. Not surprisingly, factors related to B-cell number and profile were predictive.”
Dr. Cohen, who is a director of experimental neurotherapeutics at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, added however that the suggestion of pretreating patients with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody “does not seem tenable to me,” because of the potential cost of such a strategy, and “no efficacy advantage for most patients over an anti-CD20 antibody alone.”
Commenting on this presentation, Alasdair J. Coles, MD, University of Cambridge (England), who was one of the co-inventors of alemtuzumab, said observations of an increased B-cell count before treatment as a risk predictor of thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab had not been replicated in the clinical trial datasets of the drug. “So I fear we still do not have a reliable biomarker,” he added.
The study had no specific funding listed. Dr. Walo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests.
“Alemtuzumab has proven to be an effective treatment for patients with highly active remitting relapsing MS, but adverse events may limit the use of this drug, particularly autoimmune adverse events, which are the most prevalent, occurring in about 30% of patients. Reliable biomarkers to assess patient risk for developing this complication would be of great importance,” said lead author Paulette Walo, MD.
“Our results suggest that a higher percentage of total B cells, and in particular plasmablasts, could be a very predictive biomarker for autoimmunity after alemtuzumab treatment. This could help us in choosing the patients for this drug,” said Dr. Walo, an immunologist at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid. She presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.
The objective of this study was to explore if patient blood lymphocyte profile before alemtuzumab treatment initiation can identify patients with an increased risk of developing later autoimmunity, Dr. Walo explained.
The study included 54 patients from five hospitals throughout Spain who had received treatment with alemtuzumab. Of these, the vast majority had received the normal two-dose cycle and two patients had received a third dose because of worsening MS activity.
Blood samples were collected before initiating treatment with alemtuzumab. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained and cryopreserved. Leukocyte populations were assessed by flow cytometry.
Autoimmune adverse events were defined as the development, at any point within 2 years of follow-up, of any autoimmune thyroid-associated event, immune thrombocytopenia, and/or autoimmune nephropathy.
Over the 2 years of follow-up, 14 patients (25.9%) experienced autoimmune adverse events, all of which were dysthyroidism. No immune thrombocytopenia or nephropathies were observed.
No statistical differences were found in clinical and demographic characteristics between patients who developed autoimmune adverse events and those who did not. Previous treatments did not influence B-cell percentages.
Analysis of blood lymphocyte profiles showed no difference in T-cell subsets between those who had an autoimmune event and those who did not.
Still, there were important differences in the B-cell profile, Dr. Walo said. “Total B cells were higher in patients who had an autoimmune event mainly due to naive B cells and plasmablasts.”
Patients who experienced autoimmune adverse events before treatment onset had a higher percentage of blood CD19+ B cells (P = .001), with a higher relative percentage of naive B cells and plasmablasts.
When individual types of cell numbers were explored, only plasmablast levels remained significant (P = .02).
The researchers calculated a CD19+ B-cell predictive value for autoimmunity of 7.6%. If patients had more than 7.6% B cells, they were at higher risk of an autoimmune adverse event after alemtuzumab treatment versus those with lower levels (odds ratio, 14.67; P ≤ .0001).
Similarly, the predictive value for plasmablasts was 0.13%. If patients had levels higher than 0.13% they had a higher risk of an autoimmune event after alemtuzumab treatment (P = .002). Plasmablasts are a category of B cells which are very differentiated and have the capacity to produce antibodies; they are a very active and aggressive subtype of B cells, Dr. Walo noted.
She explained that, as was the case in this study, autoimmune events after alemtuzumab treatment normally manifests as the development of antibodies against the thyroid gland, with the development of either hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, necessitating long-term treatment to manage these conditions.
“Autoimmunity develops at variable timescales. It can appear in the first year after alemtuzumab treatment but it can also appear later on,” she said.
Dr. Walo’s group is hoping to validate their results in a larger study. “This is only a small study so we need to replicate these findings in a larger cohort. We are in the process of doing this, collaborating with other hospitals,” she commented.
She said that, if the results are validated, then patients could undergo blood tests before alemtuzumab treatment to analyze their B-cell counts.
“For those with high levels of B cells – and particularly plasmablasts – alemtuzumab may not be the best treatment to choose,” Dr. Walo said.
Personalized strategy
During the postpresentation discussion, the suggestion was raised of giving an anti–B-cell drug before alemtuzumab to try and prevent autoimmunity. Dr. Walo responded that this is a possibility. “This is something that we are going to look into. If our larger study validates our initial results, then we would plan a study to give an anti–B-cell treatment such as rituximab before alemtuzumab and see whether this reduces the risk of autoimmunity.”
Commenting on the study, session comoderator Darin Okuda, MD, professor in the department of neurology and neurotherapeutics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said: “This is an intriguing approach and suggests a more personalized strategy for sure if we can identify patients who are at higher risk of developing autoimmunity.”
Also commenting, ACTRIMS president Jeffrey Cohen, MD, said: “One of the main drawbacks of alemtuzumab is the risk of antibody-mediated autoimmune conditions, so the ability to predict who is at risk for autoimmune adverse events prior to initiating alemtuzumab would be useful. Not surprisingly, factors related to B-cell number and profile were predictive.”
Dr. Cohen, who is a director of experimental neurotherapeutics at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, added however that the suggestion of pretreating patients with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody “does not seem tenable to me,” because of the potential cost of such a strategy, and “no efficacy advantage for most patients over an anti-CD20 antibody alone.”
Commenting on this presentation, Alasdair J. Coles, MD, University of Cambridge (England), who was one of the co-inventors of alemtuzumab, said observations of an increased B-cell count before treatment as a risk predictor of thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab had not been replicated in the clinical trial datasets of the drug. “So I fear we still do not have a reliable biomarker,” he added.
The study had no specific funding listed. Dr. Walo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests.
“Alemtuzumab has proven to be an effective treatment for patients with highly active remitting relapsing MS, but adverse events may limit the use of this drug, particularly autoimmune adverse events, which are the most prevalent, occurring in about 30% of patients. Reliable biomarkers to assess patient risk for developing this complication would be of great importance,” said lead author Paulette Walo, MD.
“Our results suggest that a higher percentage of total B cells, and in particular plasmablasts, could be a very predictive biomarker for autoimmunity after alemtuzumab treatment. This could help us in choosing the patients for this drug,” said Dr. Walo, an immunologist at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid. She presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.
The objective of this study was to explore if patient blood lymphocyte profile before alemtuzumab treatment initiation can identify patients with an increased risk of developing later autoimmunity, Dr. Walo explained.
The study included 54 patients from five hospitals throughout Spain who had received treatment with alemtuzumab. Of these, the vast majority had received the normal two-dose cycle and two patients had received a third dose because of worsening MS activity.
Blood samples were collected before initiating treatment with alemtuzumab. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained and cryopreserved. Leukocyte populations were assessed by flow cytometry.
Autoimmune adverse events were defined as the development, at any point within 2 years of follow-up, of any autoimmune thyroid-associated event, immune thrombocytopenia, and/or autoimmune nephropathy.
Over the 2 years of follow-up, 14 patients (25.9%) experienced autoimmune adverse events, all of which were dysthyroidism. No immune thrombocytopenia or nephropathies were observed.
No statistical differences were found in clinical and demographic characteristics between patients who developed autoimmune adverse events and those who did not. Previous treatments did not influence B-cell percentages.
Analysis of blood lymphocyte profiles showed no difference in T-cell subsets between those who had an autoimmune event and those who did not.
Still, there were important differences in the B-cell profile, Dr. Walo said. “Total B cells were higher in patients who had an autoimmune event mainly due to naive B cells and plasmablasts.”
Patients who experienced autoimmune adverse events before treatment onset had a higher percentage of blood CD19+ B cells (P = .001), with a higher relative percentage of naive B cells and plasmablasts.
When individual types of cell numbers were explored, only plasmablast levels remained significant (P = .02).
The researchers calculated a CD19+ B-cell predictive value for autoimmunity of 7.6%. If patients had more than 7.6% B cells, they were at higher risk of an autoimmune adverse event after alemtuzumab treatment versus those with lower levels (odds ratio, 14.67; P ≤ .0001).
Similarly, the predictive value for plasmablasts was 0.13%. If patients had levels higher than 0.13% they had a higher risk of an autoimmune event after alemtuzumab treatment (P = .002). Plasmablasts are a category of B cells which are very differentiated and have the capacity to produce antibodies; they are a very active and aggressive subtype of B cells, Dr. Walo noted.
She explained that, as was the case in this study, autoimmune events after alemtuzumab treatment normally manifests as the development of antibodies against the thyroid gland, with the development of either hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, necessitating long-term treatment to manage these conditions.
“Autoimmunity develops at variable timescales. It can appear in the first year after alemtuzumab treatment but it can also appear later on,” she said.
Dr. Walo’s group is hoping to validate their results in a larger study. “This is only a small study so we need to replicate these findings in a larger cohort. We are in the process of doing this, collaborating with other hospitals,” she commented.
She said that, if the results are validated, then patients could undergo blood tests before alemtuzumab treatment to analyze their B-cell counts.
“For those with high levels of B cells – and particularly plasmablasts – alemtuzumab may not be the best treatment to choose,” Dr. Walo said.
Personalized strategy
During the postpresentation discussion, the suggestion was raised of giving an anti–B-cell drug before alemtuzumab to try and prevent autoimmunity. Dr. Walo responded that this is a possibility. “This is something that we are going to look into. If our larger study validates our initial results, then we would plan a study to give an anti–B-cell treatment such as rituximab before alemtuzumab and see whether this reduces the risk of autoimmunity.”
Commenting on the study, session comoderator Darin Okuda, MD, professor in the department of neurology and neurotherapeutics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said: “This is an intriguing approach and suggests a more personalized strategy for sure if we can identify patients who are at higher risk of developing autoimmunity.”
Also commenting, ACTRIMS president Jeffrey Cohen, MD, said: “One of the main drawbacks of alemtuzumab is the risk of antibody-mediated autoimmune conditions, so the ability to predict who is at risk for autoimmune adverse events prior to initiating alemtuzumab would be useful. Not surprisingly, factors related to B-cell number and profile were predictive.”
Dr. Cohen, who is a director of experimental neurotherapeutics at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, added however that the suggestion of pretreating patients with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody “does not seem tenable to me,” because of the potential cost of such a strategy, and “no efficacy advantage for most patients over an anti-CD20 antibody alone.”
Commenting on this presentation, Alasdair J. Coles, MD, University of Cambridge (England), who was one of the co-inventors of alemtuzumab, said observations of an increased B-cell count before treatment as a risk predictor of thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab had not been replicated in the clinical trial datasets of the drug. “So I fear we still do not have a reliable biomarker,” he added.
The study had no specific funding listed. Dr. Walo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MSVIRTUAL2020
COVID-19 airway management: Expert tips on infection control
As continue to evolve, practicing vigilant transmission-based infection control precautions remains essential.
This starts with observing droplet precautions to prevent exposure to droplets larger than 5 microns in size, Charles Griffis, PhD, CRNA, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “These are particles exhaled from infected persons and which fall within around 6 feet and involve an exposure time of 15 or more minutes of contact,” said Dr. Griffis, of the department of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “We will always observe standard precautions, which include hand hygiene, gloves, hair and eye cover, medical mask, and face shield. We will observe these at all times for all patients and layer our transmission-based precautions on top.”
During aerosol-producing procedures such as airway management maneuvers, tracheostomies, and bronchoscopies, very fine microscopic particles less than 5 microns in size are produced, which remain airborne for potentially many hours and travel long distances. “We will add an N95 mask or a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) device to filter out tiny particles in addition to our ever-present standard precautions,” he said. “Contact precautions are indicated for direct contact with patient saliva, blood, urine, and stool. In addition to standard precautions, we’re going to add an impermeable gown and we’ll continue with gloves, eye protection, and shoe covers. The message is to all of us. We have to observe all of the infection precautions that all of us have learned and trained in to avoid exposure.”
In terms of airway management for infected patients for elective procedures and surgery, recommendations based on current and previous coronavirus outbreaks suggest that all patients get polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tested within 24-48 hours of elective procedures or surgeries. If positive, they should be quarantined for 10-14 days and then, if asymptomatic, these patients may be retested or they can be regarded as negative. “Patients who are PCR positive with active infection and active symptoms receive only urgent or emergent care in most settings,” said Dr. Griffis, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists Infection Control Advisory Panel. “The care provided to our patients, whether they’re positive or not, is individualized per patient needs and institutional policy. Some folks have made the decision to treat all patients as infected and to use airborne precautions for all aerosol-producing procedures for all patients all the time.”
When a COVID-19 patient requires emergent or urgent airway management because of respiratory failure or some other surgical or procedural intervention necessitating airway management, preprocedural planning is key, he continued. This means establishing the steps in airway management scenarios for infected patients and rehearsing those steps in each ICU setting with key personnel such as nurses, respiratory therapists, and medical staff. “You want to make sure that the PPE is readily available and determine and limit the number of personnel that are going to enter the patient’s room or area for airway management,” Dr. Griffis said. “Have all the airway equipment and drugs immediately available. Perhaps you could organize them in a cart which is decontaminated after every use.”
He also recommends forming an intubation team for ICUs and perhaps even for ORs, where the most experienced clinicians perform airway management. “This helps to avoid unnecessary airway manipulation and minimizes personnel exposure and time to airway establishment,” he said.
Always attempt to house the infected patient in an airborne isolation, negative-pressure room, with a minimum of 12 exchanges per hour and which will take 35 minutes for 99.99% removal of airborne contaminants after airway management. “These numbers are important to remember for room turnover safety,” he said.
Patient factors to review during airway management include assessing the past medical history, inspecting the airway and considering the patient’s current physiological status as time permits. Previously in the pandemic, intubation was used earlier in the disease course, but now data suggest that patients do better without intubation if possible (Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;102[6]. doi: 10.4269/aitmh.20-0283). “This is because the pathophysiology of COVID-19 is such that the lung tissue is predisposed to iatrogenic barotrauma damage from positive-pressure ventilation,” Dr. Griffis said. “In addition, COVID patients appear to tolerate significant hypoxemia without distress in many cases. Therefore, many clinicians now hold off on intubation until the hypoxemic patient begins exhibiting signs and symptoms of respiratory distress.”
Options for delivering noninvasive airway support for COVID-19 patients include high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation via CPAP or BiPAP. To mitigate the associated aerosol production, consider applying a surgical mask, helmet, or face mask over the airway device/patient’s face. “Another measure that has proven helpful in general respiratory support is to actually put the patient in a prone position to help redistribute ventilation throughout the lungs,” Dr. Griffis said (see Resp Care. 2015;60[11]:1660-87).
To prepare for the actual intubation procedure, gather two expert intubators who are going to be entering the patient’s room. The team should perform hand hygiene and don full PPE prior to entry. “It’s recommended that you consider wearing double gloves for the intubation,” he said. “Have the airway equipment easily accessible in a central location on a cart or in a kit, and use disposable, single-use equipment if possible. All of the usual intubation equipment to maintain a clear airway and give positive pressure ventilation should be arranged for easy access. A video laryngoscope should be used, if possible, for greater accuracy and reduced procedure time. Ready access to sedation and muscle relaxant drugs must be assured at all times.”
For the intubation procedure itself, Dr. Griffis recommends ensuring that an oxygen source, positive-pressure ventilation, and suction and resuscitation drugs and equipment are available per institutional protocol. Assign one person outside the room to coordinate supplies and assistance. “Preoxygenate the patient as permitted by clinical status,” he said. “A nonrebreathing oxygen mask can be used if sufficient spontaneous ventilation is present. Assess the airway, check and arrange equipment for easy access, and develop the safest airway management plan. Consider a rapid sequence induction and intubation as the first option.” Avoid positive-pressure ventilation or awake fiber optic intubation unless absolutely necessary, thus avoiding aerosol production. “Only ventilate the patient after the endotracheal tube cuff is inflated, to avoid aerosol release,” he said.
For intubation, administer airway procedural drugs and insert the laryngoscope – ideally a video laryngoscope if available. Intubate the trachea under direct vision, inflate the cuff, and remove outer gloves. Then attach the Ambu bag with a 99% filtration efficiency, heat-and-moisture exchange filter; and proceed to ventilate the patient, checking for chest rise, breath sounds, and CO2 production. “Discard contaminated equipment in designated bins and secure the tube,” Dr. Griffis advised. “Attach the ventilator with an HMEF filter to protect the ventilator circuit and inner parts of the machine. Recheck your breath sounds, CO2 production, and oxygen saturation, and adjust your vent settings as indicated.”
For post intubation, Dr. Griffis recommends securing contaminated discardable equipment in biohazard-labeled bins or bags, safely doffing your PPE, and retaining your N95 mask in the room. Remove your inner gloves, perform hand hygiene with soap and water if available, with alcohol-based hand rub if not, then don clean gloves. Exit the room, safely transporting any contaminated equipment that will be reused such as a cart or video laryngoscope to decontamination areas for processing. “Once clear of the room, order your chest x-ray to confirm your tube position per institutional protocol, understanding that radiology techs are all going to be following infection control procedures and wearing their PPE,” he said.
For extubation, Dr. Griffis recommends excusing all nonessential personnel from the patient room and assigning an assistant outside the room for necessary help. An experienced airway management expert should evaluate the patient wearing full PPE and be double-gloved. “If the extubation criteria are met, suction the pharynx and extubate,” he said. “Remove outer gloves and apply desired oxygen delivery equipment to the patient and assess respiratory status and vital signs for stability.” Next, discard all contaminated equipment in designated bins, doff contaminated PPE, and retain your N95 mask. Doff inner gloves, perform hand hygiene, and don clean gloves. “Exit the room, hand off contaminated equipment that is reusable, doff your gloves outside, do hand hygiene, then proceed to change your scrubs and complete your own personal hygiene measures,” he said.
Dr. Griffis reported having no financial disclosures.
“While the PPE used for intubation of a coronavirus patient is certainly more than the typical droplet precautions observed when intubating any other patient, the process and best practices aren’t terribly different from usual standard of care: Ensuring all necessary equipment is readily available with backup plans should the airway be difficult,” said Megan Conroy, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine at The Ohio State University.
“We’ve been streamlining the team that’s present in the room for intubations of COVID patients, but I’m always amazed at the team members that stand at the ready to lend additional assistance just from the other side of the door. So while fewer personnel may be exposed, I wouldn’t consider the team needed for intubation to actually be much smaller, we’re just functioning differently.
In my practice the decision of when to intubate, clinically, doesn’t vary too much from any other form of severe ARDS. We may tolerate higher FiO2 requirements on heated high-flow nasal cannula if the patient exhibits acceptable work of breathing, but I wouldn’t advise allowing a patient to remain hypoxemic with oxygen needs unmet by noninvasive methods out of fear of intubation or ventilator management. In my opinion, this simply delays a necessary therapy and only makes for a higher risk intubation. Certainly, the decision to intubate is never based on only one single data point, but takes an expert assessment of the whole clinical picture.
I’d assert that it’s true in every disease that patients do better if it’s possible to avoid intubation – but I would argue that the ability to avoid intubation is determined primarily by the disease course and clinical scenario, and not by whether the physician wishes to avoid intubation or not. If I can safely manage a patient off of a ventilator, I will always do so, COVID or otherwise. I think in this phase of the pandemic, patients ‘do better without intubation’ because those who didn’t require intubation were inherently doing better!”
As continue to evolve, practicing vigilant transmission-based infection control precautions remains essential.
This starts with observing droplet precautions to prevent exposure to droplets larger than 5 microns in size, Charles Griffis, PhD, CRNA, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “These are particles exhaled from infected persons and which fall within around 6 feet and involve an exposure time of 15 or more minutes of contact,” said Dr. Griffis, of the department of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “We will always observe standard precautions, which include hand hygiene, gloves, hair and eye cover, medical mask, and face shield. We will observe these at all times for all patients and layer our transmission-based precautions on top.”
During aerosol-producing procedures such as airway management maneuvers, tracheostomies, and bronchoscopies, very fine microscopic particles less than 5 microns in size are produced, which remain airborne for potentially many hours and travel long distances. “We will add an N95 mask or a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) device to filter out tiny particles in addition to our ever-present standard precautions,” he said. “Contact precautions are indicated for direct contact with patient saliva, blood, urine, and stool. In addition to standard precautions, we’re going to add an impermeable gown and we’ll continue with gloves, eye protection, and shoe covers. The message is to all of us. We have to observe all of the infection precautions that all of us have learned and trained in to avoid exposure.”
In terms of airway management for infected patients for elective procedures and surgery, recommendations based on current and previous coronavirus outbreaks suggest that all patients get polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tested within 24-48 hours of elective procedures or surgeries. If positive, they should be quarantined for 10-14 days and then, if asymptomatic, these patients may be retested or they can be regarded as negative. “Patients who are PCR positive with active infection and active symptoms receive only urgent or emergent care in most settings,” said Dr. Griffis, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists Infection Control Advisory Panel. “The care provided to our patients, whether they’re positive or not, is individualized per patient needs and institutional policy. Some folks have made the decision to treat all patients as infected and to use airborne precautions for all aerosol-producing procedures for all patients all the time.”
When a COVID-19 patient requires emergent or urgent airway management because of respiratory failure or some other surgical or procedural intervention necessitating airway management, preprocedural planning is key, he continued. This means establishing the steps in airway management scenarios for infected patients and rehearsing those steps in each ICU setting with key personnel such as nurses, respiratory therapists, and medical staff. “You want to make sure that the PPE is readily available and determine and limit the number of personnel that are going to enter the patient’s room or area for airway management,” Dr. Griffis said. “Have all the airway equipment and drugs immediately available. Perhaps you could organize them in a cart which is decontaminated after every use.”
He also recommends forming an intubation team for ICUs and perhaps even for ORs, where the most experienced clinicians perform airway management. “This helps to avoid unnecessary airway manipulation and minimizes personnel exposure and time to airway establishment,” he said.
Always attempt to house the infected patient in an airborne isolation, negative-pressure room, with a minimum of 12 exchanges per hour and which will take 35 minutes for 99.99% removal of airborne contaminants after airway management. “These numbers are important to remember for room turnover safety,” he said.
Patient factors to review during airway management include assessing the past medical history, inspecting the airway and considering the patient’s current physiological status as time permits. Previously in the pandemic, intubation was used earlier in the disease course, but now data suggest that patients do better without intubation if possible (Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;102[6]. doi: 10.4269/aitmh.20-0283). “This is because the pathophysiology of COVID-19 is such that the lung tissue is predisposed to iatrogenic barotrauma damage from positive-pressure ventilation,” Dr. Griffis said. “In addition, COVID patients appear to tolerate significant hypoxemia without distress in many cases. Therefore, many clinicians now hold off on intubation until the hypoxemic patient begins exhibiting signs and symptoms of respiratory distress.”
Options for delivering noninvasive airway support for COVID-19 patients include high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation via CPAP or BiPAP. To mitigate the associated aerosol production, consider applying a surgical mask, helmet, or face mask over the airway device/patient’s face. “Another measure that has proven helpful in general respiratory support is to actually put the patient in a prone position to help redistribute ventilation throughout the lungs,” Dr. Griffis said (see Resp Care. 2015;60[11]:1660-87).
To prepare for the actual intubation procedure, gather two expert intubators who are going to be entering the patient’s room. The team should perform hand hygiene and don full PPE prior to entry. “It’s recommended that you consider wearing double gloves for the intubation,” he said. “Have the airway equipment easily accessible in a central location on a cart or in a kit, and use disposable, single-use equipment if possible. All of the usual intubation equipment to maintain a clear airway and give positive pressure ventilation should be arranged for easy access. A video laryngoscope should be used, if possible, for greater accuracy and reduced procedure time. Ready access to sedation and muscle relaxant drugs must be assured at all times.”
For the intubation procedure itself, Dr. Griffis recommends ensuring that an oxygen source, positive-pressure ventilation, and suction and resuscitation drugs and equipment are available per institutional protocol. Assign one person outside the room to coordinate supplies and assistance. “Preoxygenate the patient as permitted by clinical status,” he said. “A nonrebreathing oxygen mask can be used if sufficient spontaneous ventilation is present. Assess the airway, check and arrange equipment for easy access, and develop the safest airway management plan. Consider a rapid sequence induction and intubation as the first option.” Avoid positive-pressure ventilation or awake fiber optic intubation unless absolutely necessary, thus avoiding aerosol production. “Only ventilate the patient after the endotracheal tube cuff is inflated, to avoid aerosol release,” he said.
For intubation, administer airway procedural drugs and insert the laryngoscope – ideally a video laryngoscope if available. Intubate the trachea under direct vision, inflate the cuff, and remove outer gloves. Then attach the Ambu bag with a 99% filtration efficiency, heat-and-moisture exchange filter; and proceed to ventilate the patient, checking for chest rise, breath sounds, and CO2 production. “Discard contaminated equipment in designated bins and secure the tube,” Dr. Griffis advised. “Attach the ventilator with an HMEF filter to protect the ventilator circuit and inner parts of the machine. Recheck your breath sounds, CO2 production, and oxygen saturation, and adjust your vent settings as indicated.”
For post intubation, Dr. Griffis recommends securing contaminated discardable equipment in biohazard-labeled bins or bags, safely doffing your PPE, and retaining your N95 mask in the room. Remove your inner gloves, perform hand hygiene with soap and water if available, with alcohol-based hand rub if not, then don clean gloves. Exit the room, safely transporting any contaminated equipment that will be reused such as a cart or video laryngoscope to decontamination areas for processing. “Once clear of the room, order your chest x-ray to confirm your tube position per institutional protocol, understanding that radiology techs are all going to be following infection control procedures and wearing their PPE,” he said.
For extubation, Dr. Griffis recommends excusing all nonessential personnel from the patient room and assigning an assistant outside the room for necessary help. An experienced airway management expert should evaluate the patient wearing full PPE and be double-gloved. “If the extubation criteria are met, suction the pharynx and extubate,” he said. “Remove outer gloves and apply desired oxygen delivery equipment to the patient and assess respiratory status and vital signs for stability.” Next, discard all contaminated equipment in designated bins, doff contaminated PPE, and retain your N95 mask. Doff inner gloves, perform hand hygiene, and don clean gloves. “Exit the room, hand off contaminated equipment that is reusable, doff your gloves outside, do hand hygiene, then proceed to change your scrubs and complete your own personal hygiene measures,” he said.
Dr. Griffis reported having no financial disclosures.
“While the PPE used for intubation of a coronavirus patient is certainly more than the typical droplet precautions observed when intubating any other patient, the process and best practices aren’t terribly different from usual standard of care: Ensuring all necessary equipment is readily available with backup plans should the airway be difficult,” said Megan Conroy, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine at The Ohio State University.
“We’ve been streamlining the team that’s present in the room for intubations of COVID patients, but I’m always amazed at the team members that stand at the ready to lend additional assistance just from the other side of the door. So while fewer personnel may be exposed, I wouldn’t consider the team needed for intubation to actually be much smaller, we’re just functioning differently.
In my practice the decision of when to intubate, clinically, doesn’t vary too much from any other form of severe ARDS. We may tolerate higher FiO2 requirements on heated high-flow nasal cannula if the patient exhibits acceptable work of breathing, but I wouldn’t advise allowing a patient to remain hypoxemic with oxygen needs unmet by noninvasive methods out of fear of intubation or ventilator management. In my opinion, this simply delays a necessary therapy and only makes for a higher risk intubation. Certainly, the decision to intubate is never based on only one single data point, but takes an expert assessment of the whole clinical picture.
I’d assert that it’s true in every disease that patients do better if it’s possible to avoid intubation – but I would argue that the ability to avoid intubation is determined primarily by the disease course and clinical scenario, and not by whether the physician wishes to avoid intubation or not. If I can safely manage a patient off of a ventilator, I will always do so, COVID or otherwise. I think in this phase of the pandemic, patients ‘do better without intubation’ because those who didn’t require intubation were inherently doing better!”
As continue to evolve, practicing vigilant transmission-based infection control precautions remains essential.
This starts with observing droplet precautions to prevent exposure to droplets larger than 5 microns in size, Charles Griffis, PhD, CRNA, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “These are particles exhaled from infected persons and which fall within around 6 feet and involve an exposure time of 15 or more minutes of contact,” said Dr. Griffis, of the department of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “We will always observe standard precautions, which include hand hygiene, gloves, hair and eye cover, medical mask, and face shield. We will observe these at all times for all patients and layer our transmission-based precautions on top.”
During aerosol-producing procedures such as airway management maneuvers, tracheostomies, and bronchoscopies, very fine microscopic particles less than 5 microns in size are produced, which remain airborne for potentially many hours and travel long distances. “We will add an N95 mask or a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) device to filter out tiny particles in addition to our ever-present standard precautions,” he said. “Contact precautions are indicated for direct contact with patient saliva, blood, urine, and stool. In addition to standard precautions, we’re going to add an impermeable gown and we’ll continue with gloves, eye protection, and shoe covers. The message is to all of us. We have to observe all of the infection precautions that all of us have learned and trained in to avoid exposure.”
In terms of airway management for infected patients for elective procedures and surgery, recommendations based on current and previous coronavirus outbreaks suggest that all patients get polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tested within 24-48 hours of elective procedures or surgeries. If positive, they should be quarantined for 10-14 days and then, if asymptomatic, these patients may be retested or they can be regarded as negative. “Patients who are PCR positive with active infection and active symptoms receive only urgent or emergent care in most settings,” said Dr. Griffis, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists Infection Control Advisory Panel. “The care provided to our patients, whether they’re positive or not, is individualized per patient needs and institutional policy. Some folks have made the decision to treat all patients as infected and to use airborne precautions for all aerosol-producing procedures for all patients all the time.”
When a COVID-19 patient requires emergent or urgent airway management because of respiratory failure or some other surgical or procedural intervention necessitating airway management, preprocedural planning is key, he continued. This means establishing the steps in airway management scenarios for infected patients and rehearsing those steps in each ICU setting with key personnel such as nurses, respiratory therapists, and medical staff. “You want to make sure that the PPE is readily available and determine and limit the number of personnel that are going to enter the patient’s room or area for airway management,” Dr. Griffis said. “Have all the airway equipment and drugs immediately available. Perhaps you could organize them in a cart which is decontaminated after every use.”
He also recommends forming an intubation team for ICUs and perhaps even for ORs, where the most experienced clinicians perform airway management. “This helps to avoid unnecessary airway manipulation and minimizes personnel exposure and time to airway establishment,” he said.
Always attempt to house the infected patient in an airborne isolation, negative-pressure room, with a minimum of 12 exchanges per hour and which will take 35 minutes for 99.99% removal of airborne contaminants after airway management. “These numbers are important to remember for room turnover safety,” he said.
Patient factors to review during airway management include assessing the past medical history, inspecting the airway and considering the patient’s current physiological status as time permits. Previously in the pandemic, intubation was used earlier in the disease course, but now data suggest that patients do better without intubation if possible (Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;102[6]. doi: 10.4269/aitmh.20-0283). “This is because the pathophysiology of COVID-19 is such that the lung tissue is predisposed to iatrogenic barotrauma damage from positive-pressure ventilation,” Dr. Griffis said. “In addition, COVID patients appear to tolerate significant hypoxemia without distress in many cases. Therefore, many clinicians now hold off on intubation until the hypoxemic patient begins exhibiting signs and symptoms of respiratory distress.”
Options for delivering noninvasive airway support for COVID-19 patients include high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation via CPAP or BiPAP. To mitigate the associated aerosol production, consider applying a surgical mask, helmet, or face mask over the airway device/patient’s face. “Another measure that has proven helpful in general respiratory support is to actually put the patient in a prone position to help redistribute ventilation throughout the lungs,” Dr. Griffis said (see Resp Care. 2015;60[11]:1660-87).
To prepare for the actual intubation procedure, gather two expert intubators who are going to be entering the patient’s room. The team should perform hand hygiene and don full PPE prior to entry. “It’s recommended that you consider wearing double gloves for the intubation,” he said. “Have the airway equipment easily accessible in a central location on a cart or in a kit, and use disposable, single-use equipment if possible. All of the usual intubation equipment to maintain a clear airway and give positive pressure ventilation should be arranged for easy access. A video laryngoscope should be used, if possible, for greater accuracy and reduced procedure time. Ready access to sedation and muscle relaxant drugs must be assured at all times.”
For the intubation procedure itself, Dr. Griffis recommends ensuring that an oxygen source, positive-pressure ventilation, and suction and resuscitation drugs and equipment are available per institutional protocol. Assign one person outside the room to coordinate supplies and assistance. “Preoxygenate the patient as permitted by clinical status,” he said. “A nonrebreathing oxygen mask can be used if sufficient spontaneous ventilation is present. Assess the airway, check and arrange equipment for easy access, and develop the safest airway management plan. Consider a rapid sequence induction and intubation as the first option.” Avoid positive-pressure ventilation or awake fiber optic intubation unless absolutely necessary, thus avoiding aerosol production. “Only ventilate the patient after the endotracheal tube cuff is inflated, to avoid aerosol release,” he said.
For intubation, administer airway procedural drugs and insert the laryngoscope – ideally a video laryngoscope if available. Intubate the trachea under direct vision, inflate the cuff, and remove outer gloves. Then attach the Ambu bag with a 99% filtration efficiency, heat-and-moisture exchange filter; and proceed to ventilate the patient, checking for chest rise, breath sounds, and CO2 production. “Discard contaminated equipment in designated bins and secure the tube,” Dr. Griffis advised. “Attach the ventilator with an HMEF filter to protect the ventilator circuit and inner parts of the machine. Recheck your breath sounds, CO2 production, and oxygen saturation, and adjust your vent settings as indicated.”
For post intubation, Dr. Griffis recommends securing contaminated discardable equipment in biohazard-labeled bins or bags, safely doffing your PPE, and retaining your N95 mask in the room. Remove your inner gloves, perform hand hygiene with soap and water if available, with alcohol-based hand rub if not, then don clean gloves. Exit the room, safely transporting any contaminated equipment that will be reused such as a cart or video laryngoscope to decontamination areas for processing. “Once clear of the room, order your chest x-ray to confirm your tube position per institutional protocol, understanding that radiology techs are all going to be following infection control procedures and wearing their PPE,” he said.
For extubation, Dr. Griffis recommends excusing all nonessential personnel from the patient room and assigning an assistant outside the room for necessary help. An experienced airway management expert should evaluate the patient wearing full PPE and be double-gloved. “If the extubation criteria are met, suction the pharynx and extubate,” he said. “Remove outer gloves and apply desired oxygen delivery equipment to the patient and assess respiratory status and vital signs for stability.” Next, discard all contaminated equipment in designated bins, doff contaminated PPE, and retain your N95 mask. Doff inner gloves, perform hand hygiene, and don clean gloves. “Exit the room, hand off contaminated equipment that is reusable, doff your gloves outside, do hand hygiene, then proceed to change your scrubs and complete your own personal hygiene measures,” he said.
Dr. Griffis reported having no financial disclosures.
“While the PPE used for intubation of a coronavirus patient is certainly more than the typical droplet precautions observed when intubating any other patient, the process and best practices aren’t terribly different from usual standard of care: Ensuring all necessary equipment is readily available with backup plans should the airway be difficult,” said Megan Conroy, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine at The Ohio State University.
“We’ve been streamlining the team that’s present in the room for intubations of COVID patients, but I’m always amazed at the team members that stand at the ready to lend additional assistance just from the other side of the door. So while fewer personnel may be exposed, I wouldn’t consider the team needed for intubation to actually be much smaller, we’re just functioning differently.
In my practice the decision of when to intubate, clinically, doesn’t vary too much from any other form of severe ARDS. We may tolerate higher FiO2 requirements on heated high-flow nasal cannula if the patient exhibits acceptable work of breathing, but I wouldn’t advise allowing a patient to remain hypoxemic with oxygen needs unmet by noninvasive methods out of fear of intubation or ventilator management. In my opinion, this simply delays a necessary therapy and only makes for a higher risk intubation. Certainly, the decision to intubate is never based on only one single data point, but takes an expert assessment of the whole clinical picture.
I’d assert that it’s true in every disease that patients do better if it’s possible to avoid intubation – but I would argue that the ability to avoid intubation is determined primarily by the disease course and clinical scenario, and not by whether the physician wishes to avoid intubation or not. If I can safely manage a patient off of a ventilator, I will always do so, COVID or otherwise. I think in this phase of the pandemic, patients ‘do better without intubation’ because those who didn’t require intubation were inherently doing better!”
FROM AN SCCM VIRTUAL MEETING
‘Paradigm shift’ in gastric junction cancers with nivolumab
Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.
However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.
The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.
Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.
The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).
The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).
PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).
The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.
At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.
These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.
“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”
“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”
Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.
This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.
Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).
In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).
Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.
Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.
Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Nivolumab in adjuvant setting
The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.
This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.
Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.
Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”
However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.
In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.
Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.
CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.
However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.
The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.
Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.
The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).
The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).
PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).
The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.
At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.
These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.
“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”
“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”
Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.
This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.
Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).
In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).
Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.
Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.
Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Nivolumab in adjuvant setting
The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.
This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.
Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.
Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”
However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.
In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.
Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.
CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.
However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.
The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.
Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.
The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).
The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).
PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).
The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.
At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.
These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.
“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”
“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”
Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.
This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.
Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).
In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).
Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.
Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.
Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Nivolumab in adjuvant setting
The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.
This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.
Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.
Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”
However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.
In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.
Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.
CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO 2020
J&J’s one-shot COVID-19 vaccine advances to phase 3 testing
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.
This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)
As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.
The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.
New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.
J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.
J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
Trials and tribulations
One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.
AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.
“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.
The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
Details of J&J trial
The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.
Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.
This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)
As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.
The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.
New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.
J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.
J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
Trials and tribulations
One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.
AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.
“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.
The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
Details of J&J trial
The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.
Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.
This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)
As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.
The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.
New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.
J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.
J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
Trials and tribulations
One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.
AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.
“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.
The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
Details of J&J trial
The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.
Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VERTIS CV: Ertugliflozin’s proven benefits fall short of other SGLT2 inhibitors
Further analyses from the cardiovascular outcome trial of the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes helped better define positive effects the drug had on preserving renal function, and also gave a tantalizing hint that this drug, and hence possibly the entire SGLT2 inhibitor drug class, may benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
But the underlying problem for ertugliflozin (Steglatro) – first seen when results from the VERTIS CV trial initially came out in June 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association – was that, while the trial met its primary endpoint of proving noninferiority to placebo for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, treatment with ertugliflozin showed no suggestion of benefit, compared with placebo for reducing this endpoint, producing a nonsignificant 3% relative cut in the combined rate of these adverse events, compared with placebo treatment.
‘Somewhat disappointing’ trial performance
Overall, results from VERTIS CV with ertugliflozin were “somewhat disappointing,” commented Melanie J. Davies, MD, who was not involved with the study and chaired a session at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that reviewed the main results, put them into perspective, and added a few new exploratory analyses.
Although the results from 8,246-patient VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) put ertugliflozin in the same league as other drugs from its class for safety, “we do not see the significant benefits observed in many of the previous cardiovascular outcomes trials” for other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), Dr. Davies said in an interview. The upshot, for at least the time being, is that ertugliflozin “is unlikely to receive a label for any new indications,” she predicted. In contrast, the other drugs in the class have, for example, received a U.S. labeled indication to reduce cardiovascular death (empagliflozin) or major cardiovascular disease events (canagliflozin) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, or to reduce heart failure hospitalizations (dapagliflozin).
The main results from VERTIS CV, posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine after the EASD session, showed a single significant outcome difference between treatment with ertugliflozin and placebo over a median of 3.0 years of follow-up from among 10 reported secondary outcomes: a 30% relative reduction (a 1.1% absolute reduction) in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure, the sole criterion in the report by which ertugliflozin matched the benefits of the other SGLT2 inhibitors.
But the prespecified design of VERTIS CV called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary analyses. The statistically significant noninferiority of the primary endpoint allowed calculation of the initial secondary endpoint, a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by a relative 12%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not significant.
This neutral finding brought to a stop further statistical testing of any of the other secondary endpoints, including impact on hospitalization for heart failure by itself. It also guaranteed that no beneficial effect inferred from the trial’s data would qualify for statistical validity, making it unlikely that ertugliflozin would gain any new label indications from these results. The drug carries a U.S. label that is limited to providing glycemic control.
Choosing among the SGLT2 inhibitors
“What we can say for sure is that there is a glycemic benefit and a heart failure hospitalization benefit” across all four of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “Beyond that, the best we can say today [about using these drugs in practice] is to follow regulatory indications and guidelines recommendations,” commented Javed Butler, MD, a cardiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
“These results are going to lead to some serious discussions among the research, clinical, and regulatory communities about class effects versus drug effects, and specific trial data versus the totality of evidence,” he said in an interview.
“I think it will influence prescribing ertugliflozin, particularly in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or when the goal is to improve heart failure outcomes of reduce chronic kidney disease,” added Dr. Davies, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England). “We already have positive benefits [proven for these outcomes] using other agents in the class.”
Perhaps one feature potentially in ertugliflozin’s favor is its price, and whatever impact that might have for payers or patients with inadequate coverage for their drug costs. U.S. websites show a typical retail price for ertugliflozin that is roughly 40% below the three other agents in the class, a difference that can add up to an annual cost savings of about $2,500.
A major consideration for clinicians deciding which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe should be “what can the patient afford,” noted Darren K. McGuire, MD, a coinvestigator for VERTIS CV, during discussion of the trial at the EASD virtual meeting.
New analyses show more renal-effect consistency
One surprise in the initial VERTIS CV report was in the study’s key renal outcome, a composite of renal death, need for dialysis, or a doubling of the serum creatinine level, which reflects a cut of at least a 50% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). This composite outcome trended toward a significant benefit but fell short, producing a nominal 19% relative reduction. This combined endpoint probably “set the bar too high,” said David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist who led the renal assessments run in the trial. He presented several exploratory analyses during the virtual EASD session that provided reassuring evidence that ertugliflozin was not an outlier among the SGLT2 inhibitors when it came to kidney benefits.
Perhaps the most compelling analysis he reported was a slight tweak to the main renal composite endpoint that substituted prevention of a 40% or greater reduction in eGFR for prevention of a 50% or greater reduction. By this somewhat lower bar for efficacy, treatment with ertugliflozin in VERTIS CV linked with a 34% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo (a roughly 1% absolute reduction) that was statistically significant, and importantly came out very close to the effect for this revised endpoint that had been seen for the other three SGLT2 inhibitor drugs.
Focusing on prevention of a 40% or greater drop in eGFR “gives a much more robust measure of renal protection,” Dr. Cherney, a clinician and researcher at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “The key message is that renal protection is much more uniform” with the rest of the drugs in the class when looked at this way or by some of the other alternative parameters he reported. But the new renal analyses do not address disparities seen among the drugs in the class for several cardiovascular disease effects.
“The overall impression from VERTIS CV is that there was less cardiovascular disease benefit,” except for prevention of heart failure hospitalization, he said.
A teaser for HFpEF
One additional notable new finding discussed during the EASD session stemmed from the investigators ability to mine the medical records of enrolled patients for information about their heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fractions, a data set that was “unique,” compared with the other cardiovascular outcome trials for the drugs in the class, noted Francesco Cosentino, MD, another VERTIS CV coinvestigator and professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
Roughly a quarter of the enrolled patients had a history of heart failure, and about half of these patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, about 1,000 total patients. In this subgroup treatment with ertugliflozin linked with a 30% relative reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo, a roughly 0.5% absolute reduction. The numbers were small and underpowered for producing convincing evidence, but it provided an intriguing hint of benefit for an unmet need that is currently undergoing further testing in studies designed to specifically explore benefit in this type of heart failure patient, said Dr. Cosentino.
VERTIS CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin. Dr. Davies has been a speaker on behalf of Merck and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Butler is a consultant to Merck and several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial support from Pfizer, and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cherney has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial research support from Pfizer, and has also had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cosentino has received fees from Merck and Pfizer, and also from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk
Further analyses from the cardiovascular outcome trial of the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes helped better define positive effects the drug had on preserving renal function, and also gave a tantalizing hint that this drug, and hence possibly the entire SGLT2 inhibitor drug class, may benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
But the underlying problem for ertugliflozin (Steglatro) – first seen when results from the VERTIS CV trial initially came out in June 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association – was that, while the trial met its primary endpoint of proving noninferiority to placebo for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, treatment with ertugliflozin showed no suggestion of benefit, compared with placebo for reducing this endpoint, producing a nonsignificant 3% relative cut in the combined rate of these adverse events, compared with placebo treatment.
‘Somewhat disappointing’ trial performance
Overall, results from VERTIS CV with ertugliflozin were “somewhat disappointing,” commented Melanie J. Davies, MD, who was not involved with the study and chaired a session at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that reviewed the main results, put them into perspective, and added a few new exploratory analyses.
Although the results from 8,246-patient VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) put ertugliflozin in the same league as other drugs from its class for safety, “we do not see the significant benefits observed in many of the previous cardiovascular outcomes trials” for other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), Dr. Davies said in an interview. The upshot, for at least the time being, is that ertugliflozin “is unlikely to receive a label for any new indications,” she predicted. In contrast, the other drugs in the class have, for example, received a U.S. labeled indication to reduce cardiovascular death (empagliflozin) or major cardiovascular disease events (canagliflozin) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, or to reduce heart failure hospitalizations (dapagliflozin).
The main results from VERTIS CV, posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine after the EASD session, showed a single significant outcome difference between treatment with ertugliflozin and placebo over a median of 3.0 years of follow-up from among 10 reported secondary outcomes: a 30% relative reduction (a 1.1% absolute reduction) in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure, the sole criterion in the report by which ertugliflozin matched the benefits of the other SGLT2 inhibitors.
But the prespecified design of VERTIS CV called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary analyses. The statistically significant noninferiority of the primary endpoint allowed calculation of the initial secondary endpoint, a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by a relative 12%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not significant.
This neutral finding brought to a stop further statistical testing of any of the other secondary endpoints, including impact on hospitalization for heart failure by itself. It also guaranteed that no beneficial effect inferred from the trial’s data would qualify for statistical validity, making it unlikely that ertugliflozin would gain any new label indications from these results. The drug carries a U.S. label that is limited to providing glycemic control.
Choosing among the SGLT2 inhibitors
“What we can say for sure is that there is a glycemic benefit and a heart failure hospitalization benefit” across all four of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “Beyond that, the best we can say today [about using these drugs in practice] is to follow regulatory indications and guidelines recommendations,” commented Javed Butler, MD, a cardiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
“These results are going to lead to some serious discussions among the research, clinical, and regulatory communities about class effects versus drug effects, and specific trial data versus the totality of evidence,” he said in an interview.
“I think it will influence prescribing ertugliflozin, particularly in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or when the goal is to improve heart failure outcomes of reduce chronic kidney disease,” added Dr. Davies, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England). “We already have positive benefits [proven for these outcomes] using other agents in the class.”
Perhaps one feature potentially in ertugliflozin’s favor is its price, and whatever impact that might have for payers or patients with inadequate coverage for their drug costs. U.S. websites show a typical retail price for ertugliflozin that is roughly 40% below the three other agents in the class, a difference that can add up to an annual cost savings of about $2,500.
A major consideration for clinicians deciding which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe should be “what can the patient afford,” noted Darren K. McGuire, MD, a coinvestigator for VERTIS CV, during discussion of the trial at the EASD virtual meeting.
New analyses show more renal-effect consistency
One surprise in the initial VERTIS CV report was in the study’s key renal outcome, a composite of renal death, need for dialysis, or a doubling of the serum creatinine level, which reflects a cut of at least a 50% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). This composite outcome trended toward a significant benefit but fell short, producing a nominal 19% relative reduction. This combined endpoint probably “set the bar too high,” said David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist who led the renal assessments run in the trial. He presented several exploratory analyses during the virtual EASD session that provided reassuring evidence that ertugliflozin was not an outlier among the SGLT2 inhibitors when it came to kidney benefits.
Perhaps the most compelling analysis he reported was a slight tweak to the main renal composite endpoint that substituted prevention of a 40% or greater reduction in eGFR for prevention of a 50% or greater reduction. By this somewhat lower bar for efficacy, treatment with ertugliflozin in VERTIS CV linked with a 34% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo (a roughly 1% absolute reduction) that was statistically significant, and importantly came out very close to the effect for this revised endpoint that had been seen for the other three SGLT2 inhibitor drugs.
Focusing on prevention of a 40% or greater drop in eGFR “gives a much more robust measure of renal protection,” Dr. Cherney, a clinician and researcher at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “The key message is that renal protection is much more uniform” with the rest of the drugs in the class when looked at this way or by some of the other alternative parameters he reported. But the new renal analyses do not address disparities seen among the drugs in the class for several cardiovascular disease effects.
“The overall impression from VERTIS CV is that there was less cardiovascular disease benefit,” except for prevention of heart failure hospitalization, he said.
A teaser for HFpEF
One additional notable new finding discussed during the EASD session stemmed from the investigators ability to mine the medical records of enrolled patients for information about their heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fractions, a data set that was “unique,” compared with the other cardiovascular outcome trials for the drugs in the class, noted Francesco Cosentino, MD, another VERTIS CV coinvestigator and professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
Roughly a quarter of the enrolled patients had a history of heart failure, and about half of these patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, about 1,000 total patients. In this subgroup treatment with ertugliflozin linked with a 30% relative reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo, a roughly 0.5% absolute reduction. The numbers were small and underpowered for producing convincing evidence, but it provided an intriguing hint of benefit for an unmet need that is currently undergoing further testing in studies designed to specifically explore benefit in this type of heart failure patient, said Dr. Cosentino.
VERTIS CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin. Dr. Davies has been a speaker on behalf of Merck and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Butler is a consultant to Merck and several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial support from Pfizer, and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cherney has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial research support from Pfizer, and has also had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cosentino has received fees from Merck and Pfizer, and also from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk
Further analyses from the cardiovascular outcome trial of the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes helped better define positive effects the drug had on preserving renal function, and also gave a tantalizing hint that this drug, and hence possibly the entire SGLT2 inhibitor drug class, may benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
But the underlying problem for ertugliflozin (Steglatro) – first seen when results from the VERTIS CV trial initially came out in June 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association – was that, while the trial met its primary endpoint of proving noninferiority to placebo for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, treatment with ertugliflozin showed no suggestion of benefit, compared with placebo for reducing this endpoint, producing a nonsignificant 3% relative cut in the combined rate of these adverse events, compared with placebo treatment.
‘Somewhat disappointing’ trial performance
Overall, results from VERTIS CV with ertugliflozin were “somewhat disappointing,” commented Melanie J. Davies, MD, who was not involved with the study and chaired a session at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that reviewed the main results, put them into perspective, and added a few new exploratory analyses.
Although the results from 8,246-patient VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) put ertugliflozin in the same league as other drugs from its class for safety, “we do not see the significant benefits observed in many of the previous cardiovascular outcomes trials” for other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), Dr. Davies said in an interview. The upshot, for at least the time being, is that ertugliflozin “is unlikely to receive a label for any new indications,” she predicted. In contrast, the other drugs in the class have, for example, received a U.S. labeled indication to reduce cardiovascular death (empagliflozin) or major cardiovascular disease events (canagliflozin) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, or to reduce heart failure hospitalizations (dapagliflozin).
The main results from VERTIS CV, posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine after the EASD session, showed a single significant outcome difference between treatment with ertugliflozin and placebo over a median of 3.0 years of follow-up from among 10 reported secondary outcomes: a 30% relative reduction (a 1.1% absolute reduction) in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure, the sole criterion in the report by which ertugliflozin matched the benefits of the other SGLT2 inhibitors.
But the prespecified design of VERTIS CV called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary analyses. The statistically significant noninferiority of the primary endpoint allowed calculation of the initial secondary endpoint, a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by a relative 12%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not significant.
This neutral finding brought to a stop further statistical testing of any of the other secondary endpoints, including impact on hospitalization for heart failure by itself. It also guaranteed that no beneficial effect inferred from the trial’s data would qualify for statistical validity, making it unlikely that ertugliflozin would gain any new label indications from these results. The drug carries a U.S. label that is limited to providing glycemic control.
Choosing among the SGLT2 inhibitors
“What we can say for sure is that there is a glycemic benefit and a heart failure hospitalization benefit” across all four of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “Beyond that, the best we can say today [about using these drugs in practice] is to follow regulatory indications and guidelines recommendations,” commented Javed Butler, MD, a cardiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
“These results are going to lead to some serious discussions among the research, clinical, and regulatory communities about class effects versus drug effects, and specific trial data versus the totality of evidence,” he said in an interview.
“I think it will influence prescribing ertugliflozin, particularly in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or when the goal is to improve heart failure outcomes of reduce chronic kidney disease,” added Dr. Davies, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England). “We already have positive benefits [proven for these outcomes] using other agents in the class.”
Perhaps one feature potentially in ertugliflozin’s favor is its price, and whatever impact that might have for payers or patients with inadequate coverage for their drug costs. U.S. websites show a typical retail price for ertugliflozin that is roughly 40% below the three other agents in the class, a difference that can add up to an annual cost savings of about $2,500.
A major consideration for clinicians deciding which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe should be “what can the patient afford,” noted Darren K. McGuire, MD, a coinvestigator for VERTIS CV, during discussion of the trial at the EASD virtual meeting.
New analyses show more renal-effect consistency
One surprise in the initial VERTIS CV report was in the study’s key renal outcome, a composite of renal death, need for dialysis, or a doubling of the serum creatinine level, which reflects a cut of at least a 50% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). This composite outcome trended toward a significant benefit but fell short, producing a nominal 19% relative reduction. This combined endpoint probably “set the bar too high,” said David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist who led the renal assessments run in the trial. He presented several exploratory analyses during the virtual EASD session that provided reassuring evidence that ertugliflozin was not an outlier among the SGLT2 inhibitors when it came to kidney benefits.
Perhaps the most compelling analysis he reported was a slight tweak to the main renal composite endpoint that substituted prevention of a 40% or greater reduction in eGFR for prevention of a 50% or greater reduction. By this somewhat lower bar for efficacy, treatment with ertugliflozin in VERTIS CV linked with a 34% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo (a roughly 1% absolute reduction) that was statistically significant, and importantly came out very close to the effect for this revised endpoint that had been seen for the other three SGLT2 inhibitor drugs.
Focusing on prevention of a 40% or greater drop in eGFR “gives a much more robust measure of renal protection,” Dr. Cherney, a clinician and researcher at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “The key message is that renal protection is much more uniform” with the rest of the drugs in the class when looked at this way or by some of the other alternative parameters he reported. But the new renal analyses do not address disparities seen among the drugs in the class for several cardiovascular disease effects.
“The overall impression from VERTIS CV is that there was less cardiovascular disease benefit,” except for prevention of heart failure hospitalization, he said.
A teaser for HFpEF
One additional notable new finding discussed during the EASD session stemmed from the investigators ability to mine the medical records of enrolled patients for information about their heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fractions, a data set that was “unique,” compared with the other cardiovascular outcome trials for the drugs in the class, noted Francesco Cosentino, MD, another VERTIS CV coinvestigator and professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
Roughly a quarter of the enrolled patients had a history of heart failure, and about half of these patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, about 1,000 total patients. In this subgroup treatment with ertugliflozin linked with a 30% relative reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo, a roughly 0.5% absolute reduction. The numbers were small and underpowered for producing convincing evidence, but it provided an intriguing hint of benefit for an unmet need that is currently undergoing further testing in studies designed to specifically explore benefit in this type of heart failure patient, said Dr. Cosentino.
VERTIS CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin. Dr. Davies has been a speaker on behalf of Merck and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Butler is a consultant to Merck and several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial support from Pfizer, and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cherney has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial research support from Pfizer, and has also had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cosentino has received fees from Merck and Pfizer, and also from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk
FROM EASD 2020
What to do when a patient is not ready to stop smoking
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
Case
A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?
The Guideline in context
Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.1
In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.
This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.1 Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.2 This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.1
In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.1
Suggested treatment
This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.
References
1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.
2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
Case
A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?
The Guideline in context
Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.1
In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.
This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.1 Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.2 This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.1
In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.1
Suggested treatment
This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.
References
1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.
2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
Case
A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?
The Guideline in context
Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.1
In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.
This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.1 Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.2 This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.1
In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.1
Suggested treatment
This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.
References
1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.
2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
Hepatocellular carcinoma shows risk factor shift
Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to rise in the United States, but unevenly so given how the incidence has become highest in the Hispanic population, which is reflected in increased rates in the southern and western states, Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances, which is jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.
In addition to this demographic shift, the risk factors for HCC are shifting, he said. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been the dominant risk factor for HCC; for patients with active HCV, the factors historically associated with increased HCC risk have included alcohol consumption, obesity, diabetes, coinfection, and genetics, he said.
This pattern is starting to change. In fact, for patients with active HCV, antiviral treatment with a sustained virologic response has surfaced as the most significant risk factor in the development of HCC, said Dr. El-Serag: Among these patients, sustained virologic response from direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. However, it is important to recognize that a residual risk of HCC remains that doesn’t go away for several years, he noted.
“Who are those people who got treated, got cured, and still developed HCC? Those with cirrhosis at the time of treatment,” he said. Those with cirrhosis have cumulative incidence of 1.8% per year, but those without cirrhosis had very low risk, he said.
Some good news in HCC is that rates appear to be declining among young men, and this is thought to be one of the groups who are achieving a cure of HCV, he said.
“One would hope, if goals for HCV elimination are met, that will translate into massive reduction of HCC,” he said.
“The issue now for hepatitis is finding infected patients and curing them,” he noted.
Dr. El-Serag touched on hepatitis B (HBV), which continues to be the driving force of hepatitis infections globally. However, in patients who receive and respond to antiviral treatment “there is a significant and considerable reduction in HCC in the context of hepatitis B” similar to that seen with hepatitis C. Vaccination programs for HBV have started to make the desired impact of reducing HCC in HBV-endemic areas, he noted.
However, current risk factors for HCC are related less to HCV and HBV and more to metabolic syndrome because more people are treated for HCV and HBV, Dr. El-Serag said. He went on to address the new dominant global risk factor for HCC: obesity. Based on data from multiple studies, those who are obese, defined as a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, carry a twofold increased risk of developing HCC, he said.
To reduce this risk, treatment targets might address intermediate factors such as abdominal obesity, said Dr. El-Serag. He cited a study published in Hepatology in which individuals in the highest tertile for waist-hip ratio had a threefold higher risk of HCC, compared with those in the lowest tertile.
In addition, consideration of obesity must include type 2 diabetes, which is often linked to obesity and occurs in approximately one-third of adults in the United States, Dr. El-Serag said.
Treatment of type 2 diabetes may make a difference in HCC risk reduction, Dr. El-Serag noted. “The impact of treatment of diabetes on HCC risk is an area of intense interest,” he said. Based on the latest research, “the bottom line is that those treated with metformin experience a 50% reduction in the risk of HCC,” he said
Dr. El-Serag also acknowledged the impact of other risk factors for HCC: the use of statins and the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Dr. El-Serag noted that, among NAFLD patients, subgroups at even greater risk for HCC include those with diabetes, those older than 65 years, Hispanic race, and those with cirrhosis. These patients should be candidates for surveillance. Metabolic dysfunction traits such as obesity and diabetes are very common conditions, so it’s important to look at other, more specific factors, he added. “I hope that there will be tools to help clinicians classify or risk-stratify patients into different buckets,” he said.
Areas for further research on HCC continue to include risk stratification, mechanisms of action, and HCC prevention related to treatment of metabolic syndrome, he emphasized.
Dr. El-Serag had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
*This story was updated on Oct. 28, 2020.
SOURCE: El-Serag HB. Digestive Diseases: New Advances 2020.
Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to rise in the United States, but unevenly so given how the incidence has become highest in the Hispanic population, which is reflected in increased rates in the southern and western states, Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances, which is jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.
In addition to this demographic shift, the risk factors for HCC are shifting, he said. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been the dominant risk factor for HCC; for patients with active HCV, the factors historically associated with increased HCC risk have included alcohol consumption, obesity, diabetes, coinfection, and genetics, he said.
This pattern is starting to change. In fact, for patients with active HCV, antiviral treatment with a sustained virologic response has surfaced as the most significant risk factor in the development of HCC, said Dr. El-Serag: Among these patients, sustained virologic response from direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. However, it is important to recognize that a residual risk of HCC remains that doesn’t go away for several years, he noted.
“Who are those people who got treated, got cured, and still developed HCC? Those with cirrhosis at the time of treatment,” he said. Those with cirrhosis have cumulative incidence of 1.8% per year, but those without cirrhosis had very low risk, he said.
Some good news in HCC is that rates appear to be declining among young men, and this is thought to be one of the groups who are achieving a cure of HCV, he said.
“One would hope, if goals for HCV elimination are met, that will translate into massive reduction of HCC,” he said.
“The issue now for hepatitis is finding infected patients and curing them,” he noted.
Dr. El-Serag touched on hepatitis B (HBV), which continues to be the driving force of hepatitis infections globally. However, in patients who receive and respond to antiviral treatment “there is a significant and considerable reduction in HCC in the context of hepatitis B” similar to that seen with hepatitis C. Vaccination programs for HBV have started to make the desired impact of reducing HCC in HBV-endemic areas, he noted.
However, current risk factors for HCC are related less to HCV and HBV and more to metabolic syndrome because more people are treated for HCV and HBV, Dr. El-Serag said. He went on to address the new dominant global risk factor for HCC: obesity. Based on data from multiple studies, those who are obese, defined as a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, carry a twofold increased risk of developing HCC, he said.
To reduce this risk, treatment targets might address intermediate factors such as abdominal obesity, said Dr. El-Serag. He cited a study published in Hepatology in which individuals in the highest tertile for waist-hip ratio had a threefold higher risk of HCC, compared with those in the lowest tertile.
In addition, consideration of obesity must include type 2 diabetes, which is often linked to obesity and occurs in approximately one-third of adults in the United States, Dr. El-Serag said.
Treatment of type 2 diabetes may make a difference in HCC risk reduction, Dr. El-Serag noted. “The impact of treatment of diabetes on HCC risk is an area of intense interest,” he said. Based on the latest research, “the bottom line is that those treated with metformin experience a 50% reduction in the risk of HCC,” he said
Dr. El-Serag also acknowledged the impact of other risk factors for HCC: the use of statins and the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Dr. El-Serag noted that, among NAFLD patients, subgroups at even greater risk for HCC include those with diabetes, those older than 65 years, Hispanic race, and those with cirrhosis. These patients should be candidates for surveillance. Metabolic dysfunction traits such as obesity and diabetes are very common conditions, so it’s important to look at other, more specific factors, he added. “I hope that there will be tools to help clinicians classify or risk-stratify patients into different buckets,” he said.
Areas for further research on HCC continue to include risk stratification, mechanisms of action, and HCC prevention related to treatment of metabolic syndrome, he emphasized.
Dr. El-Serag had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
*This story was updated on Oct. 28, 2020.
SOURCE: El-Serag HB. Digestive Diseases: New Advances 2020.
Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to rise in the United States, but unevenly so given how the incidence has become highest in the Hispanic population, which is reflected in increased rates in the southern and western states, Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances, which is jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.
In addition to this demographic shift, the risk factors for HCC are shifting, he said. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been the dominant risk factor for HCC; for patients with active HCV, the factors historically associated with increased HCC risk have included alcohol consumption, obesity, diabetes, coinfection, and genetics, he said.
This pattern is starting to change. In fact, for patients with active HCV, antiviral treatment with a sustained virologic response has surfaced as the most significant risk factor in the development of HCC, said Dr. El-Serag: Among these patients, sustained virologic response from direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. However, it is important to recognize that a residual risk of HCC remains that doesn’t go away for several years, he noted.
“Who are those people who got treated, got cured, and still developed HCC? Those with cirrhosis at the time of treatment,” he said. Those with cirrhosis have cumulative incidence of 1.8% per year, but those without cirrhosis had very low risk, he said.
Some good news in HCC is that rates appear to be declining among young men, and this is thought to be one of the groups who are achieving a cure of HCV, he said.
“One would hope, if goals for HCV elimination are met, that will translate into massive reduction of HCC,” he said.
“The issue now for hepatitis is finding infected patients and curing them,” he noted.
Dr. El-Serag touched on hepatitis B (HBV), which continues to be the driving force of hepatitis infections globally. However, in patients who receive and respond to antiviral treatment “there is a significant and considerable reduction in HCC in the context of hepatitis B” similar to that seen with hepatitis C. Vaccination programs for HBV have started to make the desired impact of reducing HCC in HBV-endemic areas, he noted.
However, current risk factors for HCC are related less to HCV and HBV and more to metabolic syndrome because more people are treated for HCV and HBV, Dr. El-Serag said. He went on to address the new dominant global risk factor for HCC: obesity. Based on data from multiple studies, those who are obese, defined as a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, carry a twofold increased risk of developing HCC, he said.
To reduce this risk, treatment targets might address intermediate factors such as abdominal obesity, said Dr. El-Serag. He cited a study published in Hepatology in which individuals in the highest tertile for waist-hip ratio had a threefold higher risk of HCC, compared with those in the lowest tertile.
In addition, consideration of obesity must include type 2 diabetes, which is often linked to obesity and occurs in approximately one-third of adults in the United States, Dr. El-Serag said.
Treatment of type 2 diabetes may make a difference in HCC risk reduction, Dr. El-Serag noted. “The impact of treatment of diabetes on HCC risk is an area of intense interest,” he said. Based on the latest research, “the bottom line is that those treated with metformin experience a 50% reduction in the risk of HCC,” he said
Dr. El-Serag also acknowledged the impact of other risk factors for HCC: the use of statins and the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Dr. El-Serag noted that, among NAFLD patients, subgroups at even greater risk for HCC include those with diabetes, those older than 65 years, Hispanic race, and those with cirrhosis. These patients should be candidates for surveillance. Metabolic dysfunction traits such as obesity and diabetes are very common conditions, so it’s important to look at other, more specific factors, he added. “I hope that there will be tools to help clinicians classify or risk-stratify patients into different buckets,” he said.
Areas for further research on HCC continue to include risk stratification, mechanisms of action, and HCC prevention related to treatment of metabolic syndrome, he emphasized.
Dr. El-Serag had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
*This story was updated on Oct. 28, 2020.
SOURCE: El-Serag HB. Digestive Diseases: New Advances 2020.
FROM DIGESTIVE DISEASES: NEW ADVANCES
NCI may ‘kill’ major mammography trial, says adviser
Reevaluation comes after Medscape report
In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.
The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.
Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.
Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.
At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”
There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.
TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.
Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.
He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.
Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”
However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.
Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.
“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.
Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)
Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”
Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”
Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”
Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”
Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
TMIST investigators respond
A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.
Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.
She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”
The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.
Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.
TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.
Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.
TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.
These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.
“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.
“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.
“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.
But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”
He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.
“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.
TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Reevaluation comes after Medscape report
Reevaluation comes after Medscape report
In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.
The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.
Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.
Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.
At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”
There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.
TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.
Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.
He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.
Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”
However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.
Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.
“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.
Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)
Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”
Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”
Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”
Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”
Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
TMIST investigators respond
A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.
Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.
She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”
The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.
Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.
TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.
Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.
TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.
These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.
“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.
“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.
“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.
But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”
He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.
“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.
TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.
The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.
Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.
Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.
At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”
There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.
TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.
Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.
He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.
Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”
However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.
Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.
“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.
Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)
Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”
Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”
Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”
Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”
Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
TMIST investigators respond
A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.
Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.
She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”
The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.
Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.
TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.
Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.
TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.
These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.
“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.
“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.
“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.
But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”
He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.
“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.
TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.