The National Institute on Drug Abuse has released an updated set of resources to help parents "sort out marijuana myths from science based facts," according to a statement released May 20 by the National Institutes of Health.

Two updated booklets are being released in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Prevention Week 2014, which takes place May 18-24.

© Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto.com

"Marijuana Facts for Teens" covers the topics of marijuana’s health consequences in teens, its effect on the developing brain, addiction risk, and updated information about its potential medical benefits. "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know" contains updated guidelines for parents on how to tell if their child is using marijuana and how to discuss the topic with their children.

Both publications have been updated to include new sections on the dangers of synthetic marijuana, the effect of marijuana use on teens’ IQ, and potential therapeutic uses of the drug.

According to the 2013 Monitoring the Future survey, 45.5% of teens will have tried marijuana at least once by the time they graduate high school, and more than 6% of high school seniors report smoking daily.

For more information, visit http://teens.drugabuse.gov/.

[email protected]

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has released an updated set of resources to help parents "sort out marijuana myths from science based facts," according to a statement released May 20 by the National Institutes of Health.

Two updated booklets are being released in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Prevention Week 2014, which takes place May 18-24.

© Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto.com

"Marijuana Facts for Teens" covers the topics of marijuana’s health consequences in teens, its effect on the developing brain, addiction risk, and updated information about its potential medical benefits. "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know" contains updated guidelines for parents on how to tell if their child is using marijuana and how to discuss the topic with their children.

Both publications have been updated to include new sections on the dangers of synthetic marijuana, the effect of marijuana use on teens’ IQ, and potential therapeutic uses of the drug.

According to the 2013 Monitoring the Future survey, 45.5% of teens will have tried marijuana at least once by the time they graduate high school, and more than 6% of high school seniors report smoking daily.

For more information, visit http://teens.drugabuse.gov/.

[email protected]

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has released an updated set of resources to help parents "sort out marijuana myths from science based facts," according to a statement released May 20 by the National Institutes of Health.

Two updated booklets are being released in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Prevention Week 2014, which takes place May 18-24.

© Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto.com

"Marijuana Facts for Teens" covers the topics of marijuana’s health consequences in teens, its effect on the developing brain, addiction risk, and updated information about its potential medical benefits. "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know" contains updated guidelines for parents on how to tell if their child is using marijuana and how to discuss the topic with their children.

Both publications have been updated to include new sections on the dangers of synthetic marijuana, the effect of marijuana use on teens’ IQ, and potential therapeutic uses of the drug.

According to the 2013 Monitoring the Future survey, 45.5% of teens will have tried marijuana at least once by the time they graduate high school, and more than 6% of high school seniors report smoking daily.

For more information, visit http://teens.drugabuse.gov/.

[email protected]

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Ambulatory Medical Center Survey reveal benzodiazepine prescriptions grew by 12.5% per year between 2002 and 2009. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that prescriptions for sleep aids (sedatives and hypnotics) tripled between 1998 and 2006. Four percent of U.S. adults age 20 years or older and 7% of adults age 80 years or older report using a prescription sleep aid in the past month.

Aside from the addictive potential and their limited long-term effectiveness, they may be associated with an increased risk of death.

Dr. Scott Weich and his colleagues at University of Warwick, Coventry, England, analyzed data from a retrospective matched cohort study involving 34,727 patients aged at least 16 years who received prescriptions for anxiolytics or hypnotics and 69,418 patients who did not (BMJ 2014;348:g1996). To reduce the likelihood that patients received a prescription that they did not fill, only patients receiving at least two prescriptions were included. The average follow-up period was 7.6 years. The most commonly prescribed drugs were diazepam (48%), temazepam (35%), zopiclone (34%), and zolpidem (8%).

Significantly higher ratios for mortality were observed with the use of these drugs. Adjusting for potential confounders, the hazard ratio for mortality during the whole follow-up period was significantly elevated for the group receiving any sedative or hypnotic in the first year of recruitment (hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval: 3.19-3.45).

Dose responses were observed for study drugs. For example, the HR for patients receiving more than 90 doses during the first year was 4.51 (95% CI: 4.22-4.82). Patients who did not receive study drugs beyond 1 year were less likely to die than those who continued to take them. The authors point out that these data translate into four excess deaths linked to use of these drugs per 100 people over 7.6 years after the initial prescription.

The biggest challenge will be to figure out how best to incorporate this information into our counseling of patients without sounding like we are "fear-mongering." Fear-mongering doesn’t work – it just makes our patients more anxious, when what we really need to do is calm them down.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy works for insomnia, but patients report not having the time. I always start the discussion by telling patients to read the book "No More Sleepless Nights" and to start a sleep log. Amazing what we can learn from this. This as least gets the ball rolling.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. Dr. Ebbert does not receive royalties from the sale of "No More Sleepless Nights."

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Ambulatory Medical Center Survey reveal benzodiazepine prescriptions grew by 12.5% per year between 2002 and 2009. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that prescriptions for sleep aids (sedatives and hypnotics) tripled between 1998 and 2006. Four percent of U.S. adults age 20 years or older and 7% of adults age 80 years or older report using a prescription sleep aid in the past month.

Aside from the addictive potential and their limited long-term effectiveness, they may be associated with an increased risk of death.

Dr. Scott Weich and his colleagues at University of Warwick, Coventry, England, analyzed data from a retrospective matched cohort study involving 34,727 patients aged at least 16 years who received prescriptions for anxiolytics or hypnotics and 69,418 patients who did not (BMJ 2014;348:g1996). To reduce the likelihood that patients received a prescription that they did not fill, only patients receiving at least two prescriptions were included. The average follow-up period was 7.6 years. The most commonly prescribed drugs were diazepam (48%), temazepam (35%), zopiclone (34%), and zolpidem (8%).

Significantly higher ratios for mortality were observed with the use of these drugs. Adjusting for potential confounders, the hazard ratio for mortality during the whole follow-up period was significantly elevated for the group receiving any sedative or hypnotic in the first year of recruitment (hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval: 3.19-3.45).

Dose responses were observed for study drugs. For example, the HR for patients receiving more than 90 doses during the first year was 4.51 (95% CI: 4.22-4.82). Patients who did not receive study drugs beyond 1 year were less likely to die than those who continued to take them. The authors point out that these data translate into four excess deaths linked to use of these drugs per 100 people over 7.6 years after the initial prescription.

The biggest challenge will be to figure out how best to incorporate this information into our counseling of patients without sounding like we are "fear-mongering." Fear-mongering doesn’t work – it just makes our patients more anxious, when what we really need to do is calm them down.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy works for insomnia, but patients report not having the time. I always start the discussion by telling patients to read the book "No More Sleepless Nights" and to start a sleep log. Amazing what we can learn from this. This as least gets the ball rolling.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. Dr. Ebbert does not receive royalties from the sale of "No More Sleepless Nights."

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Ambulatory Medical Center Survey reveal benzodiazepine prescriptions grew by 12.5% per year between 2002 and 2009. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that prescriptions for sleep aids (sedatives and hypnotics) tripled between 1998 and 2006. Four percent of U.S. adults age 20 years or older and 7% of adults age 80 years or older report using a prescription sleep aid in the past month.

Aside from the addictive potential and their limited long-term effectiveness, they may be associated with an increased risk of death.

Dr. Scott Weich and his colleagues at University of Warwick, Coventry, England, analyzed data from a retrospective matched cohort study involving 34,727 patients aged at least 16 years who received prescriptions for anxiolytics or hypnotics and 69,418 patients who did not (BMJ 2014;348:g1996). To reduce the likelihood that patients received a prescription that they did not fill, only patients receiving at least two prescriptions were included. The average follow-up period was 7.6 years. The most commonly prescribed drugs were diazepam (48%), temazepam (35%), zopiclone (34%), and zolpidem (8%).

Significantly higher ratios for mortality were observed with the use of these drugs. Adjusting for potential confounders, the hazard ratio for mortality during the whole follow-up period was significantly elevated for the group receiving any sedative or hypnotic in the first year of recruitment (hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval: 3.19-3.45).

Dose responses were observed for study drugs. For example, the HR for patients receiving more than 90 doses during the first year was 4.51 (95% CI: 4.22-4.82). Patients who did not receive study drugs beyond 1 year were less likely to die than those who continued to take them. The authors point out that these data translate into four excess deaths linked to use of these drugs per 100 people over 7.6 years after the initial prescription.

The biggest challenge will be to figure out how best to incorporate this information into our counseling of patients without sounding like we are "fear-mongering." Fear-mongering doesn’t work – it just makes our patients more anxious, when what we really need to do is calm them down.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy works for insomnia, but patients report not having the time. I always start the discussion by telling patients to read the book "No More Sleepless Nights" and to start a sleep log. Amazing what we can learn from this. This as least gets the ball rolling.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. Dr. Ebbert does not receive royalties from the sale of "No More Sleepless Nights."

Chemists say they have determined the correct structure of a compound that has shown activity against lymphoma and a range of other cancers.

Their research, published in Angewandte Chemie, focused on a compound called TIC10.

The team showed that TIC10’s structure differs subtly from a version described by another group last year, and the previous structure associated with TIC10 actually describes a molecule that lacks TIC10’s anticancer activity.

The newly identified structure describes a molecule with potent anticancer effects in animals, representing a new family of biologically active structures that can now be explored for possible therapeutic uses.

“This new structure should generate much interest in the cancer research community,” said study author Kim D. Janda, PhD, of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

Antitumor potential

TIC10 was first described in Science Translational Medicine in early 2013. The authors identified the compound, within a library of thousands of molecules maintained by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), for its ability to boost cells’ production of the natural antitumor protein TRAIL. (TIC10 stands for TRAIL-inducing compound #10.)

As a small molecule, TIC10 would be easier to deliver in a therapy than the TRAIL protein itself. The paper’s authors reported that TIC10 was orally active and dramatically shrank a variety of tumors in mice.

Tumors can develop resistance to TRAIL, but Dr Janda had been studying compounds that defeat this resistance. The news about TIC10 therefore got his attention.

“I thought, ‘They have this molecule for upregulating TRAIL, and we have these molecules that can overcome tumor-cell TRAIL resistance—the combination could be important,’” he said.

The original publication on TIC10 included a figure showing its predicted structure. So Dr Janda asked one of his postdoctoral researchers, Jonathan Lockner, to make TIC10 using that information.

Although the original TIC10 research team had seemingly confirmed the predicted structure with mass spectrometry, no one had published a thorough characterization of the TIC10 molecule.

“There were no nuclear magnetic resonance data or X-ray crystallography data, and there was definitely no procedure for the synthesis,” Dr Lockner said. “My background was chemistry, though, so I was able to find a way to synthesize it starting from simple compounds.”

Surprising inactivity

There was just one problem with Dr Lockner’s newly synthesized “TIC10.” When tested, it failed to induce TRAIL expression in cells, even at high doses.

“Of course, I was nervous,” Dr Lockner said. “As a chemist, you never want to make a mistake and give biologists the wrong material.”

To try and verify they had the right material, Dr Janda’s team obtained a sample of TIC10 directly from the NCI.

“When we got that sample and tested it, we saw that it had the expected TRAIL-upregulating effect,” said Nicholas Jacob, a graduate student in the Janda Lab and coauthor of the new paper.

“That prompted us to look more closely at the structures of these 2 compounds.”

The researchers spent months characterizing their own synthesized material and the NCI material, using an array of sophisticated structural analysis tools. They also tested the 2 compounds’ biological effects.

The team eventually concluded that the TIC10 compound from the NCI library does boost TRAIL production in cells and remains promising as the basis for anticancer therapies, but it does not have the structure that was originally published.

The right structure

The originally published structure has a core made of 3 carbon-nitrogen rings in a straight line and does not induce TRAIL activity. The correct, TRAIL-inducing structure differs subtly, with an end ring that sticks out at an angle.

 

In chemists’ parlance, the 2 compounds are constitutional isomers: a linear imidazolinopyrimidinone and an angular imidazolinopyrimidinone.

And Dr Lockner found that the angular, TRAIL-inducing structure was easier to synthesize than the one originally described.

Now, with the correct molecule in hand and a solid understanding of its structure and synthesis, Dr Janda and his team are moving forward with their original plan to study TIC10 in combination with TRAIL-resistance-thwarting molecules as an anticancer therapy.

The therapeutic implications of TIC10 may even go beyond cancer, according to the researchers. The angular core of the TRAIL-inducing molecule Dr Janda’s team discovered is a novel type of a biologically active structure, or pharmacophore, from which chemists may now be able to build a new class of candidate drugs, possibly for a variety of ailments.

Chemists say they have determined the correct structure of a compound that has shown activity against lymphoma and a range of other cancers.

Their research, published in Angewandte Chemie, focused on a compound called TIC10.

The team showed that TIC10’s structure differs subtly from a version described by another group last year, and the previous structure associated with TIC10 actually describes a molecule that lacks TIC10’s anticancer activity.

The newly identified structure describes a molecule with potent anticancer effects in animals, representing a new family of biologically active structures that can now be explored for possible therapeutic uses.

“This new structure should generate much interest in the cancer research community,” said study author Kim D. Janda, PhD, of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

Antitumor potential

TIC10 was first described in Science Translational Medicine in early 2013. The authors identified the compound, within a library of thousands of molecules maintained by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), for its ability to boost cells’ production of the natural antitumor protein TRAIL. (TIC10 stands for TRAIL-inducing compound #10.)

As a small molecule, TIC10 would be easier to deliver in a therapy than the TRAIL protein itself. The paper’s authors reported that TIC10 was orally active and dramatically shrank a variety of tumors in mice.

Tumors can develop resistance to TRAIL, but Dr Janda had been studying compounds that defeat this resistance. The news about TIC10 therefore got his attention.

“I thought, ‘They have this molecule for upregulating TRAIL, and we have these molecules that can overcome tumor-cell TRAIL resistance—the combination could be important,’” he said.

The original publication on TIC10 included a figure showing its predicted structure. So Dr Janda asked one of his postdoctoral researchers, Jonathan Lockner, to make TIC10 using that information.

Although the original TIC10 research team had seemingly confirmed the predicted structure with mass spectrometry, no one had published a thorough characterization of the TIC10 molecule.

“There were no nuclear magnetic resonance data or X-ray crystallography data, and there was definitely no procedure for the synthesis,” Dr Lockner said. “My background was chemistry, though, so I was able to find a way to synthesize it starting from simple compounds.”

Surprising inactivity

There was just one problem with Dr Lockner’s newly synthesized “TIC10.” When tested, it failed to induce TRAIL expression in cells, even at high doses.

“Of course, I was nervous,” Dr Lockner said. “As a chemist, you never want to make a mistake and give biologists the wrong material.”

To try and verify they had the right material, Dr Janda’s team obtained a sample of TIC10 directly from the NCI.

“When we got that sample and tested it, we saw that it had the expected TRAIL-upregulating effect,” said Nicholas Jacob, a graduate student in the Janda Lab and coauthor of the new paper.

“That prompted us to look more closely at the structures of these 2 compounds.”

The researchers spent months characterizing their own synthesized material and the NCI material, using an array of sophisticated structural analysis tools. They also tested the 2 compounds’ biological effects.

The team eventually concluded that the TIC10 compound from the NCI library does boost TRAIL production in cells and remains promising as the basis for anticancer therapies, but it does not have the structure that was originally published.

The right structure

The originally published structure has a core made of 3 carbon-nitrogen rings in a straight line and does not induce TRAIL activity. The correct, TRAIL-inducing structure differs subtly, with an end ring that sticks out at an angle.

 

In chemists’ parlance, the 2 compounds are constitutional isomers: a linear imidazolinopyrimidinone and an angular imidazolinopyrimidinone.

And Dr Lockner found that the angular, TRAIL-inducing structure was easier to synthesize than the one originally described.

Now, with the correct molecule in hand and a solid understanding of its structure and synthesis, Dr Janda and his team are moving forward with their original plan to study TIC10 in combination with TRAIL-resistance-thwarting molecules as an anticancer therapy.

The therapeutic implications of TIC10 may even go beyond cancer, according to the researchers. The angular core of the TRAIL-inducing molecule Dr Janda’s team discovered is a novel type of a biologically active structure, or pharmacophore, from which chemists may now be able to build a new class of candidate drugs, possibly for a variety of ailments.

Chemists say they have determined the correct structure of a compound that has shown activity against lymphoma and a range of other cancers.

Their research, published in Angewandte Chemie, focused on a compound called TIC10.

The team showed that TIC10’s structure differs subtly from a version described by another group last year, and the previous structure associated with TIC10 actually describes a molecule that lacks TIC10’s anticancer activity.

The newly identified structure describes a molecule with potent anticancer effects in animals, representing a new family of biologically active structures that can now be explored for possible therapeutic uses.

“This new structure should generate much interest in the cancer research community,” said study author Kim D. Janda, PhD, of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

Antitumor potential

TIC10 was first described in Science Translational Medicine in early 2013. The authors identified the compound, within a library of thousands of molecules maintained by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), for its ability to boost cells’ production of the natural antitumor protein TRAIL. (TIC10 stands for TRAIL-inducing compound #10.)

As a small molecule, TIC10 would be easier to deliver in a therapy than the TRAIL protein itself. The paper’s authors reported that TIC10 was orally active and dramatically shrank a variety of tumors in mice.

Tumors can develop resistance to TRAIL, but Dr Janda had been studying compounds that defeat this resistance. The news about TIC10 therefore got his attention.

“I thought, ‘They have this molecule for upregulating TRAIL, and we have these molecules that can overcome tumor-cell TRAIL resistance—the combination could be important,’” he said.

The original publication on TIC10 included a figure showing its predicted structure. So Dr Janda asked one of his postdoctoral researchers, Jonathan Lockner, to make TIC10 using that information.

Although the original TIC10 research team had seemingly confirmed the predicted structure with mass spectrometry, no one had published a thorough characterization of the TIC10 molecule.

“There were no nuclear magnetic resonance data or X-ray crystallography data, and there was definitely no procedure for the synthesis,” Dr Lockner said. “My background was chemistry, though, so I was able to find a way to synthesize it starting from simple compounds.”

Surprising inactivity

There was just one problem with Dr Lockner’s newly synthesized “TIC10.” When tested, it failed to induce TRAIL expression in cells, even at high doses.

“Of course, I was nervous,” Dr Lockner said. “As a chemist, you never want to make a mistake and give biologists the wrong material.”

To try and verify they had the right material, Dr Janda’s team obtained a sample of TIC10 directly from the NCI.

“When we got that sample and tested it, we saw that it had the expected TRAIL-upregulating effect,” said Nicholas Jacob, a graduate student in the Janda Lab and coauthor of the new paper.

“That prompted us to look more closely at the structures of these 2 compounds.”

The researchers spent months characterizing their own synthesized material and the NCI material, using an array of sophisticated structural analysis tools. They also tested the 2 compounds’ biological effects.

The team eventually concluded that the TIC10 compound from the NCI library does boost TRAIL production in cells and remains promising as the basis for anticancer therapies, but it does not have the structure that was originally published.

The right structure

The originally published structure has a core made of 3 carbon-nitrogen rings in a straight line and does not induce TRAIL activity. The correct, TRAIL-inducing structure differs subtly, with an end ring that sticks out at an angle.

 

In chemists’ parlance, the 2 compounds are constitutional isomers: a linear imidazolinopyrimidinone and an angular imidazolinopyrimidinone.

And Dr Lockner found that the angular, TRAIL-inducing structure was easier to synthesize than the one originally described.

Now, with the correct molecule in hand and a solid understanding of its structure and synthesis, Dr Janda and his team are moving forward with their original plan to study TIC10 in combination with TRAIL-resistance-thwarting molecules as an anticancer therapy.

The therapeutic implications of TIC10 may even go beyond cancer, according to the researchers. The angular core of the TRAIL-inducing molecule Dr Janda’s team discovered is a novel type of a biologically active structure, or pharmacophore, from which chemists may now be able to build a new class of candidate drugs, possibly for a variety of ailments.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to selinexor (KPT-330) for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The drug elicited responses in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including DLBCL, in an ongoing phase 1 study.

Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear transport that functions by binding to the nuclear export protein XPO1 (also called CRM1). This leads to the accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the cell nucleus, which is thought to cause apoptosis in cancer cells while largely sparing normal cells.

The FDA grants orphan designation to promote the development of drugs that target conditions affecting 200,000 or fewer US patients annually and are expected to provide significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Selinexor’s orphan designation for DLBCL qualifies the drug’s developer, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., for benefits that apply across all stages of development, including an accelerated approval process, 7 years of market exclusivity following marketing approval, tax credits on US clinical trials, eligibility for orphan drug grants, and a waiver of certain administrative fees.

The FDA has also granted selinexor orphan status for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.

Phase 1 study

Researchers evaluated selinexor in an ongoing phase 1 study of patients with NHL or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and presented results at the 2013 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 90).

At that time, the study included 18 patients with NHL or CLL. They had a median age of 66.5 years and had received a median of 4.5 prior treatment regimens.

Patients received selinexor at 6 different dose levels. There were no clinically significant cumulative toxicities or cases of major organ dysfunction, and the maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Researchers continued dosing at 35 mg/m² twice weekly.

Ten patients experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events, including thrombocytopenia without bleeding (n=6), neutropenia (n=5), dehydration (n=1), syncope (n=1), hypotension (n=1), and fatigue (n=1).

The most common grade 1/2 events were anorexia (n=10), fatigue (n=9), diarrhea (n=6), vomiting (n=6), neutropenia (n=5), malaise (n=3), anemia (n=3), and weight loss (n=3).

Response was evaluable in 15 patients. Eighty percent of patients, all of whom had progressive disease on study entry, experienced tumor shrinkage or disease stabilization on selinexor. The other 20% of patients progressed.

Of 3 patients with DLBCL, 1 progressed, 1 had stable disease, and 1 achieved 93% tumor shrinkage.

“We are encouraged by the response data in patients with DLBCL who have received selinexor in our ongoing phase 1 clinical trial in advanced hematological malignancies,” said Michael G. Kauffman, MD, PhD, Karyopharm’s Chief Executive Officer.

“We plan to present updated clinical data for selinexor across multiple indications, including DLBCL, at ASCO 2014.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to selinexor (KPT-330) for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The drug elicited responses in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including DLBCL, in an ongoing phase 1 study.

Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear transport that functions by binding to the nuclear export protein XPO1 (also called CRM1). This leads to the accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the cell nucleus, which is thought to cause apoptosis in cancer cells while largely sparing normal cells.

The FDA grants orphan designation to promote the development of drugs that target conditions affecting 200,000 or fewer US patients annually and are expected to provide significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Selinexor’s orphan designation for DLBCL qualifies the drug’s developer, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., for benefits that apply across all stages of development, including an accelerated approval process, 7 years of market exclusivity following marketing approval, tax credits on US clinical trials, eligibility for orphan drug grants, and a waiver of certain administrative fees.

The FDA has also granted selinexor orphan status for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.

Phase 1 study

Researchers evaluated selinexor in an ongoing phase 1 study of patients with NHL or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and presented results at the 2013 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 90).

At that time, the study included 18 patients with NHL or CLL. They had a median age of 66.5 years and had received a median of 4.5 prior treatment regimens.

Patients received selinexor at 6 different dose levels. There were no clinically significant cumulative toxicities or cases of major organ dysfunction, and the maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Researchers continued dosing at 35 mg/m² twice weekly.

Ten patients experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events, including thrombocytopenia without bleeding (n=6), neutropenia (n=5), dehydration (n=1), syncope (n=1), hypotension (n=1), and fatigue (n=1).

The most common grade 1/2 events were anorexia (n=10), fatigue (n=9), diarrhea (n=6), vomiting (n=6), neutropenia (n=5), malaise (n=3), anemia (n=3), and weight loss (n=3).

Response was evaluable in 15 patients. Eighty percent of patients, all of whom had progressive disease on study entry, experienced tumor shrinkage or disease stabilization on selinexor. The other 20% of patients progressed.

Of 3 patients with DLBCL, 1 progressed, 1 had stable disease, and 1 achieved 93% tumor shrinkage.

“We are encouraged by the response data in patients with DLBCL who have received selinexor in our ongoing phase 1 clinical trial in advanced hematological malignancies,” said Michael G. Kauffman, MD, PhD, Karyopharm’s Chief Executive Officer.

“We plan to present updated clinical data for selinexor across multiple indications, including DLBCL, at ASCO 2014.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to selinexor (KPT-330) for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The drug elicited responses in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including DLBCL, in an ongoing phase 1 study.

Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear transport that functions by binding to the nuclear export protein XPO1 (also called CRM1). This leads to the accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins in the cell nucleus, which is thought to cause apoptosis in cancer cells while largely sparing normal cells.

The FDA grants orphan designation to promote the development of drugs that target conditions affecting 200,000 or fewer US patients annually and are expected to provide significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Selinexor’s orphan designation for DLBCL qualifies the drug’s developer, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., for benefits that apply across all stages of development, including an accelerated approval process, 7 years of market exclusivity following marketing approval, tax credits on US clinical trials, eligibility for orphan drug grants, and a waiver of certain administrative fees.

The FDA has also granted selinexor orphan status for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.

Phase 1 study

Researchers evaluated selinexor in an ongoing phase 1 study of patients with NHL or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and presented results at the 2013 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 90).

At that time, the study included 18 patients with NHL or CLL. They had a median age of 66.5 years and had received a median of 4.5 prior treatment regimens.

Patients received selinexor at 6 different dose levels. There were no clinically significant cumulative toxicities or cases of major organ dysfunction, and the maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Researchers continued dosing at 35 mg/m² twice weekly.

Ten patients experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events, including thrombocytopenia without bleeding (n=6), neutropenia (n=5), dehydration (n=1), syncope (n=1), hypotension (n=1), and fatigue (n=1).

The most common grade 1/2 events were anorexia (n=10), fatigue (n=9), diarrhea (n=6), vomiting (n=6), neutropenia (n=5), malaise (n=3), anemia (n=3), and weight loss (n=3).

Response was evaluable in 15 patients. Eighty percent of patients, all of whom had progressive disease on study entry, experienced tumor shrinkage or disease stabilization on selinexor. The other 20% of patients progressed.

Of 3 patients with DLBCL, 1 progressed, 1 had stable disease, and 1 achieved 93% tumor shrinkage.

“We are encouraged by the response data in patients with DLBCL who have received selinexor in our ongoing phase 1 clinical trial in advanced hematological malignancies,” said Michael G. Kauffman, MD, PhD, Karyopharm’s Chief Executive Officer.

“We plan to present updated clinical data for selinexor across multiple indications, including DLBCL, at ASCO 2014.”

A review of clinical trial data from 2012 suggests Hispanic patients are underrepresented in US cancer studies, and many trial publications fail to provide information on patients’ racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Researchers analyzed 159 reports of phase 2 and 3 trials and found that roughly 21% included information on the number of minority patients enrolled.

About 8% of the publications included data on the number of Hispanic patients enrolled.

And from this data, the investigators found the accrual rate for Hispanic patients was about 4%.

According to the researchers, this lack of information and low representation inhibits physicians’ ability to provide optimal treatment to Hispanic cancer patients and patients belonging to other minority groups.

“We have a major responsibility to ensure adequate representation,” said study author Ian M. Thompson Jr, MD, of The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

“How else will we know how best to treat our patients, and how else are we going to reduce the health disparities in [the Hispanic] population?”

Dr Thompson and his colleagues have a particular interest in the Hispanic population because 58% of San Antonio residents are Hispanic, as are 68% of residents in South Texas as a whole.

So the investigators wanted to determine Hispanic accrual rates in randomized trials of cancer patients. The team evaluated data from phase 2 and 3 cancer trials published in 2012. They focused on studies that were considered likely to change the standard of care and were published in “high-impact” journals.

The researchers identified 159 trials—68 phase 2 studies and 91 phase 3 studies. They discovered that 33 of the trial publications—about 21%—disclosed data on minority accrual. And 13 publications—about 8%—included data on the accrual of Hispanic cancer patients.

Of the 4154 patients enrolled on those 13 trials, 162 were Hispanic, which translates to an overall accrual rate of 3.9%. The enrollment of Hispanic patients ranged from 1 patient (0.5%) in a phase 2 trial of lung cancer to 17 patients (26%) in a phase 2 study of acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

“Fundamentally, in the most recent published cancer clinical trials, either the number and proportion of Hispanics are not reported or are far below their actual representation in the national population,” Dr Thompson summarized.

“For institutions like ours that serve a ‘minority-majority’ population, it’s a major responsibility for us to ensure adequate representation so that we can tell our patients how they can best be treated and how we can reduce the disparities of this rapidly growing population.”

Dr Thompson and his colleagues described this research in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

A review of clinical trial data from 2012 suggests Hispanic patients are underrepresented in US cancer studies, and many trial publications fail to provide information on patients’ racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Researchers analyzed 159 reports of phase 2 and 3 trials and found that roughly 21% included information on the number of minority patients enrolled.

About 8% of the publications included data on the number of Hispanic patients enrolled.

And from this data, the investigators found the accrual rate for Hispanic patients was about 4%.

According to the researchers, this lack of information and low representation inhibits physicians’ ability to provide optimal treatment to Hispanic cancer patients and patients belonging to other minority groups.

“We have a major responsibility to ensure adequate representation,” said study author Ian M. Thompson Jr, MD, of The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

“How else will we know how best to treat our patients, and how else are we going to reduce the health disparities in [the Hispanic] population?”

Dr Thompson and his colleagues have a particular interest in the Hispanic population because 58% of San Antonio residents are Hispanic, as are 68% of residents in South Texas as a whole.

So the investigators wanted to determine Hispanic accrual rates in randomized trials of cancer patients. The team evaluated data from phase 2 and 3 cancer trials published in 2012. They focused on studies that were considered likely to change the standard of care and were published in “high-impact” journals.

The researchers identified 159 trials—68 phase 2 studies and 91 phase 3 studies. They discovered that 33 of the trial publications—about 21%—disclosed data on minority accrual. And 13 publications—about 8%—included data on the accrual of Hispanic cancer patients.

Of the 4154 patients enrolled on those 13 trials, 162 were Hispanic, which translates to an overall accrual rate of 3.9%. The enrollment of Hispanic patients ranged from 1 patient (0.5%) in a phase 2 trial of lung cancer to 17 patients (26%) in a phase 2 study of acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

“Fundamentally, in the most recent published cancer clinical trials, either the number and proportion of Hispanics are not reported or are far below their actual representation in the national population,” Dr Thompson summarized.

“For institutions like ours that serve a ‘minority-majority’ population, it’s a major responsibility for us to ensure adequate representation so that we can tell our patients how they can best be treated and how we can reduce the disparities of this rapidly growing population.”

Dr Thompson and his colleagues described this research in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

A review of clinical trial data from 2012 suggests Hispanic patients are underrepresented in US cancer studies, and many trial publications fail to provide information on patients’ racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Researchers analyzed 159 reports of phase 2 and 3 trials and found that roughly 21% included information on the number of minority patients enrolled.

About 8% of the publications included data on the number of Hispanic patients enrolled.

And from this data, the investigators found the accrual rate for Hispanic patients was about 4%.

According to the researchers, this lack of information and low representation inhibits physicians’ ability to provide optimal treatment to Hispanic cancer patients and patients belonging to other minority groups.

“We have a major responsibility to ensure adequate representation,” said study author Ian M. Thompson Jr, MD, of The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

“How else will we know how best to treat our patients, and how else are we going to reduce the health disparities in [the Hispanic] population?”

Dr Thompson and his colleagues have a particular interest in the Hispanic population because 58% of San Antonio residents are Hispanic, as are 68% of residents in South Texas as a whole.

So the investigators wanted to determine Hispanic accrual rates in randomized trials of cancer patients. The team evaluated data from phase 2 and 3 cancer trials published in 2012. They focused on studies that were considered likely to change the standard of care and were published in “high-impact” journals.

The researchers identified 159 trials—68 phase 2 studies and 91 phase 3 studies. They discovered that 33 of the trial publications—about 21%—disclosed data on minority accrual. And 13 publications—about 8%—included data on the accrual of Hispanic cancer patients.

Of the 4154 patients enrolled on those 13 trials, 162 were Hispanic, which translates to an overall accrual rate of 3.9%. The enrollment of Hispanic patients ranged from 1 patient (0.5%) in a phase 2 trial of lung cancer to 17 patients (26%) in a phase 2 study of acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

“Fundamentally, in the most recent published cancer clinical trials, either the number and proportion of Hispanics are not reported or are far below their actual representation in the national population,” Dr Thompson summarized.

“For institutions like ours that serve a ‘minority-majority’ population, it’s a major responsibility for us to ensure adequate representation so that we can tell our patients how they can best be treated and how we can reduce the disparities of this rapidly growing population.”

Dr Thompson and his colleagues described this research in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough therapy designation for elotuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody

(mAb).

The designation is for elotuzumab used in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received 1 or more prior therapies.

The FDA’s decision is based on findings from a phase 2 trial in which MM patients received that treatment combination.

According to the FDA, breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. For a treatment to receive this designation, there must be preliminary clinical evidence that demonstrates the drug may offer substantial improvement over currently available therapy on at least 1 clinically significant endpoint.

About elotuzumab

Elotuzumab is a humanized IgG1 mAb targeting signaling lymphocyte activation molecule (SLAMF7, also known as CS1), a glycoprotein expressed on myeloma and natural killer cells but not detectable in normal tissue.

Researchers are investigating whether, through both direct activation and engagement of natural killer cells, elotuzumab may selectively target and kill SLAMF7-expressing myeloma cells.

Elotuzumab is under investigation as a monotherapy in smoldering myeloma and in combination with other therapies in first-line and relapsed or refractory MM.

A clinical development program for the mAb is underway, including phase 3 trials in first-line MM (ELOQUENT-1) and relapsed or refractory MM (ELOQUENT-2). The agent is also under investigation in a randomized, phase 2 study of bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Elotuzumab is under development by AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Phase 2 trial results

The breakthrough therapy designation for elotuzumab is based on results of a randomized, phase 2 trial presented at the EHA 2013 Annual Congress (abstract 14). Study investigators tested 2 doses of the mAb in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with previously treated MM.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive elotuzumab at 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg (intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle in the first 2 cycles and then days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles) in combination with oral lenalidomide at 25 mg/day on days 1 to 21 and oral dexamethasone at 40 mg/week. Patients were treated until their disease progressed or they developed unacceptable toxicity.

In the 10 mg/kg arm (n=36), which is the dose used in the ongoing phase 3 trials, the median progression-free survival was 33 months, after a median follow-up of 20.8 months. And the objective response rate was 92%.

In the 20 mg/kg arm (n=37), the median progression-free survival was 18 months, after a median follow-up of 17.1 months. And the objective response rate was 76%.

The safety data were consistent with previously reported results for elotuzumab from this trial. In patients receiving elotuzumab at 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg, most treatment-emergent adverse events occurred within 18 months of starting therapy.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for the 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg arms, respectively, were lymphopenia (26% and 9%), neutropenia (21% and 22%), thrombocytopenia (21% and 17%), anemia (13% and 12%), leukopenia (8% and 7%), hyperglycemia (5% and 12%), pneumonia (8% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and 5%), fatigue (8% and 9%), and hypokalemia (8% and 5%).

Two deaths occurred on study. One patient died of pneumonia, multiple organ failure, and sepsis. The other died of disease progression.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough therapy designation for elotuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody

(mAb).

The designation is for elotuzumab used in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received 1 or more prior therapies.

The FDA’s decision is based on findings from a phase 2 trial in which MM patients received that treatment combination.

According to the FDA, breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. For a treatment to receive this designation, there must be preliminary clinical evidence that demonstrates the drug may offer substantial improvement over currently available therapy on at least 1 clinically significant endpoint.

About elotuzumab

Elotuzumab is a humanized IgG1 mAb targeting signaling lymphocyte activation molecule (SLAMF7, also known as CS1), a glycoprotein expressed on myeloma and natural killer cells but not detectable in normal tissue.

Researchers are investigating whether, through both direct activation and engagement of natural killer cells, elotuzumab may selectively target and kill SLAMF7-expressing myeloma cells.

Elotuzumab is under investigation as a monotherapy in smoldering myeloma and in combination with other therapies in first-line and relapsed or refractory MM.

A clinical development program for the mAb is underway, including phase 3 trials in first-line MM (ELOQUENT-1) and relapsed or refractory MM (ELOQUENT-2). The agent is also under investigation in a randomized, phase 2 study of bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Elotuzumab is under development by AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Phase 2 trial results

The breakthrough therapy designation for elotuzumab is based on results of a randomized, phase 2 trial presented at the EHA 2013 Annual Congress (abstract 14). Study investigators tested 2 doses of the mAb in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with previously treated MM.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive elotuzumab at 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg (intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle in the first 2 cycles and then days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles) in combination with oral lenalidomide at 25 mg/day on days 1 to 21 and oral dexamethasone at 40 mg/week. Patients were treated until their disease progressed or they developed unacceptable toxicity.

In the 10 mg/kg arm (n=36), which is the dose used in the ongoing phase 3 trials, the median progression-free survival was 33 months, after a median follow-up of 20.8 months. And the objective response rate was 92%.

In the 20 mg/kg arm (n=37), the median progression-free survival was 18 months, after a median follow-up of 17.1 months. And the objective response rate was 76%.

The safety data were consistent with previously reported results for elotuzumab from this trial. In patients receiving elotuzumab at 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg, most treatment-emergent adverse events occurred within 18 months of starting therapy.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for the 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg arms, respectively, were lymphopenia (26% and 9%), neutropenia (21% and 22%), thrombocytopenia (21% and 17%), anemia (13% and 12%), leukopenia (8% and 7%), hyperglycemia (5% and 12%), pneumonia (8% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and 5%), fatigue (8% and 9%), and hypokalemia (8% and 5%).

Two deaths occurred on study. One patient died of pneumonia, multiple organ failure, and sepsis. The other died of disease progression.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough therapy designation for elotuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody

(mAb).

The designation is for elotuzumab used in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received 1 or more prior therapies.

The FDA’s decision is based on findings from a phase 2 trial in which MM patients received that treatment combination.

According to the FDA, breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. For a treatment to receive this designation, there must be preliminary clinical evidence that demonstrates the drug may offer substantial improvement over currently available therapy on at least 1 clinically significant endpoint.

About elotuzumab

Elotuzumab is a humanized IgG1 mAb targeting signaling lymphocyte activation molecule (SLAMF7, also known as CS1), a glycoprotein expressed on myeloma and natural killer cells but not detectable in normal tissue.

Researchers are investigating whether, through both direct activation and engagement of natural killer cells, elotuzumab may selectively target and kill SLAMF7-expressing myeloma cells.

Elotuzumab is under investigation as a monotherapy in smoldering myeloma and in combination with other therapies in first-line and relapsed or refractory MM.

A clinical development program for the mAb is underway, including phase 3 trials in first-line MM (ELOQUENT-1) and relapsed or refractory MM (ELOQUENT-2). The agent is also under investigation in a randomized, phase 2 study of bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Elotuzumab is under development by AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Phase 2 trial results

The breakthrough therapy designation for elotuzumab is based on results of a randomized, phase 2 trial presented at the EHA 2013 Annual Congress (abstract 14). Study investigators tested 2 doses of the mAb in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with previously treated MM.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive elotuzumab at 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg (intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle in the first 2 cycles and then days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles) in combination with oral lenalidomide at 25 mg/day on days 1 to 21 and oral dexamethasone at 40 mg/week. Patients were treated until their disease progressed or they developed unacceptable toxicity.

In the 10 mg/kg arm (n=36), which is the dose used in the ongoing phase 3 trials, the median progression-free survival was 33 months, after a median follow-up of 20.8 months. And the objective response rate was 92%.

In the 20 mg/kg arm (n=37), the median progression-free survival was 18 months, after a median follow-up of 17.1 months. And the objective response rate was 76%.

The safety data were consistent with previously reported results for elotuzumab from this trial. In patients receiving elotuzumab at 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg, most treatment-emergent adverse events occurred within 18 months of starting therapy.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for the 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg arms, respectively, were lymphopenia (26% and 9%), neutropenia (21% and 22%), thrombocytopenia (21% and 17%), anemia (13% and 12%), leukopenia (8% and 7%), hyperglycemia (5% and 12%), pneumonia (8% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and 5%), fatigue (8% and 9%), and hypokalemia (8% and 5%).

Two deaths occurred on study. One patient died of pneumonia, multiple organ failure, and sepsis. The other died of disease progression.

The somatostatin analogue pasireotide reduced postoperative pancreatic fistula leak or abscess by 56%, compared with placebo, a randomized study has determined.

Pasireotide (Signifor) was effective after both pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, whether or not the pancreatic duct was dilated, Dr. Peter J. Allen and his colleagues wrote in the May 21 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:2014-22).

In those patients who did develop fistulas or leaks, pasireotide was associated with fewer grade 3 occurrences.

"These results suggest that ... not only were many leaks and fistulas prevented, but when they did occur they were less clinically relevant," wrote Dr. Allen of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his coauthors.

The study randomized 300 patients to subcutaneous injections of either placebo or pasireotide twice daily for 7 days after pancreatic surgery. The primary endpoint was the development of a pancreatic leak, fistula, or abscess of at least grade 3. Secondary endpoints included the overall rate of pancreatic complications (all grades) and the rate of grade B or grade C pancreatic fistula.

Patients were a mean of 64 years old. Most (73%) underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy. The average length of stay for these patients was about 10 days. The active group received 900 mcg of pasireotide subcutaneously twice daily for 7 days, beginning on the morning of surgery.

Mean postoperative serum glucose levels were significantly higher in patients taking pasireotide (258 mg/dL vs. 215 mg/dL). Readmission occurred in significantly fewer pasireotide patients (17% vs. 29%).

Significantly fewer of those taking the active drug were able to finish the entire course of 14 doses (76% vs. 86% given placebo). The lower completion rate was mostly due to nausea and vomiting, which caused 26 patients in the active group and 3 in the placebo group to withdraw from the study.

A leak or fistula of grade 3 or higher developed in 45 patients. The outcome was significantly less common among those taking pasireotide than among those on placebo (9% vs. 21%; relative risk, 0.44). "This corresponded to an absolute risk reduction of 11.7 percentage points," with a number needed to treat of 8, the investigators said.

Pasireotide was significantly more effective than placebo in surgical subgroups, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RR, 0.49) and distal pancreatectomy (RR, 0.32). The effect was also positive whether the pancreatic duct was dilated (RR, 0.11) or nondilated (RR, 0.55).

The secondary outcome (grade B or C postoperative fistula) occurred in 37 patients (12%). In the pasireotide group, there were 12 grade B fistulas and no grade C fistulas. In the placebo group, there were 20 grade B and 5 grade C fistulas.

Overall 60-day mortality was 0.7% (one death in each treatment group). Grade 3 and 4 complications were common, occurring in 92% of the pasireotide group and 90% of the placebo group. Most of these were expected postoperative serum abnormalities.

The investigators said that the other approved somatostatin analogue, octreotide, has not been clearly associated with pancreatic leak reduction. They suggested that pasireotide may be more effective because it has a longer half-life and binds to four of the five somatostatin-receptor subtypes, rather than just two, as octreotide does.

They added that the octreotide studies were conducted before 2005, when there was no consistent definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Therefore, they concluded, the extant data cannot be used to identify octreotide efficacy in this application.

Pasireotide, which is made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, is currently approved as an injection for the treatment of Cushing’s disease patients who cannot be helped through surgery.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. Dr. Allen received Novartis grant funding but had no other financial ties with the company.

[email protected]

The somatostatin analogue pasireotide reduced postoperative pancreatic fistula leak or abscess by 56%, compared with placebo, a randomized study has determined.

Pasireotide (Signifor) was effective after both pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, whether or not the pancreatic duct was dilated, Dr. Peter J. Allen and his colleagues wrote in the May 21 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:2014-22).

In those patients who did develop fistulas or leaks, pasireotide was associated with fewer grade 3 occurrences.

"These results suggest that ... not only were many leaks and fistulas prevented, but when they did occur they were less clinically relevant," wrote Dr. Allen of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his coauthors.

The study randomized 300 patients to subcutaneous injections of either placebo or pasireotide twice daily for 7 days after pancreatic surgery. The primary endpoint was the development of a pancreatic leak, fistula, or abscess of at least grade 3. Secondary endpoints included the overall rate of pancreatic complications (all grades) and the rate of grade B or grade C pancreatic fistula.

Patients were a mean of 64 years old. Most (73%) underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy. The average length of stay for these patients was about 10 days. The active group received 900 mcg of pasireotide subcutaneously twice daily for 7 days, beginning on the morning of surgery.

Mean postoperative serum glucose levels were significantly higher in patients taking pasireotide (258 mg/dL vs. 215 mg/dL). Readmission occurred in significantly fewer pasireotide patients (17% vs. 29%).

Significantly fewer of those taking the active drug were able to finish the entire course of 14 doses (76% vs. 86% given placebo). The lower completion rate was mostly due to nausea and vomiting, which caused 26 patients in the active group and 3 in the placebo group to withdraw from the study.

A leak or fistula of grade 3 or higher developed in 45 patients. The outcome was significantly less common among those taking pasireotide than among those on placebo (9% vs. 21%; relative risk, 0.44). "This corresponded to an absolute risk reduction of 11.7 percentage points," with a number needed to treat of 8, the investigators said.

Pasireotide was significantly more effective than placebo in surgical subgroups, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RR, 0.49) and distal pancreatectomy (RR, 0.32). The effect was also positive whether the pancreatic duct was dilated (RR, 0.11) or nondilated (RR, 0.55).

The secondary outcome (grade B or C postoperative fistula) occurred in 37 patients (12%). In the pasireotide group, there were 12 grade B fistulas and no grade C fistulas. In the placebo group, there were 20 grade B and 5 grade C fistulas.

Overall 60-day mortality was 0.7% (one death in each treatment group). Grade 3 and 4 complications were common, occurring in 92% of the pasireotide group and 90% of the placebo group. Most of these were expected postoperative serum abnormalities.

The investigators said that the other approved somatostatin analogue, octreotide, has not been clearly associated with pancreatic leak reduction. They suggested that pasireotide may be more effective because it has a longer half-life and binds to four of the five somatostatin-receptor subtypes, rather than just two, as octreotide does.

They added that the octreotide studies were conducted before 2005, when there was no consistent definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Therefore, they concluded, the extant data cannot be used to identify octreotide efficacy in this application.

Pasireotide, which is made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, is currently approved as an injection for the treatment of Cushing’s disease patients who cannot be helped through surgery.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. Dr. Allen received Novartis grant funding but had no other financial ties with the company.

[email protected]

The somatostatin analogue pasireotide reduced postoperative pancreatic fistula leak or abscess by 56%, compared with placebo, a randomized study has determined.

Pasireotide (Signifor) was effective after both pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, whether or not the pancreatic duct was dilated, Dr. Peter J. Allen and his colleagues wrote in the May 21 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:2014-22).

In those patients who did develop fistulas or leaks, pasireotide was associated with fewer grade 3 occurrences.

"These results suggest that ... not only were many leaks and fistulas prevented, but when they did occur they were less clinically relevant," wrote Dr. Allen of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his coauthors.

The study randomized 300 patients to subcutaneous injections of either placebo or pasireotide twice daily for 7 days after pancreatic surgery. The primary endpoint was the development of a pancreatic leak, fistula, or abscess of at least grade 3. Secondary endpoints included the overall rate of pancreatic complications (all grades) and the rate of grade B or grade C pancreatic fistula.

Patients were a mean of 64 years old. Most (73%) underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy. The average length of stay for these patients was about 10 days. The active group received 900 mcg of pasireotide subcutaneously twice daily for 7 days, beginning on the morning of surgery.

Mean postoperative serum glucose levels were significantly higher in patients taking pasireotide (258 mg/dL vs. 215 mg/dL). Readmission occurred in significantly fewer pasireotide patients (17% vs. 29%).

Significantly fewer of those taking the active drug were able to finish the entire course of 14 doses (76% vs. 86% given placebo). The lower completion rate was mostly due to nausea and vomiting, which caused 26 patients in the active group and 3 in the placebo group to withdraw from the study.

A leak or fistula of grade 3 or higher developed in 45 patients. The outcome was significantly less common among those taking pasireotide than among those on placebo (9% vs. 21%; relative risk, 0.44). "This corresponded to an absolute risk reduction of 11.7 percentage points," with a number needed to treat of 8, the investigators said.

Pasireotide was significantly more effective than placebo in surgical subgroups, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RR, 0.49) and distal pancreatectomy (RR, 0.32). The effect was also positive whether the pancreatic duct was dilated (RR, 0.11) or nondilated (RR, 0.55).

The secondary outcome (grade B or C postoperative fistula) occurred in 37 patients (12%). In the pasireotide group, there were 12 grade B fistulas and no grade C fistulas. In the placebo group, there were 20 grade B and 5 grade C fistulas.

Overall 60-day mortality was 0.7% (one death in each treatment group). Grade 3 and 4 complications were common, occurring in 92% of the pasireotide group and 90% of the placebo group. Most of these were expected postoperative serum abnormalities.

The investigators said that the other approved somatostatin analogue, octreotide, has not been clearly associated with pancreatic leak reduction. They suggested that pasireotide may be more effective because it has a longer half-life and binds to four of the five somatostatin-receptor subtypes, rather than just two, as octreotide does.

They added that the octreotide studies were conducted before 2005, when there was no consistent definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Therefore, they concluded, the extant data cannot be used to identify octreotide efficacy in this application.

Pasireotide, which is made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, is currently approved as an injection for the treatment of Cushing’s disease patients who cannot be helped through surgery.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. Dr. Allen received Novartis grant funding but had no other financial ties with the company.

[email protected]

Patients diagnosed with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Indiana and Florida have healthcare workers and hospitalists on the lookout for additional cases of the potentially fatal respiratory infection.

Hospitalists should pay attention to patients exhibiting fever and respiratory symptoms who traveled to the Arabian Peninsula in the 14 days prior to disease onset, and contact the hospital epidemiologist if MERS is suspected, says James Pile, MD, vice chair of the department of hospital medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

The CDC has reported three cases of MERS this month. The first, reported on May 2, involved a healthcare worker from Saudi Arabia who traveled to Indiana to visit family. The second was reported on May 11, when another visiting healthcare worker from Saudi Arabia checked into the emergency department in Orlando, Fla., after he fell ill with fever, chills, and a slight cough. Both patients are considered to be fully recovered.

The third MERS case is in an Illinois man who had a business meeting with the patient from Indiana and represents the first case of the virus being contracted in the U.S. A blood test confirmed that the Illinois man had been infected with the virus, but he’s reported that he no longer feels sick.

Caused by a coronavirus called MERS-CoV, MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. So far, there have been more than 600 confirmed cases around the world and 181 people have died, according to the World Health Organization.

"The CDC suggests that the index U.S. case represents a very low threat to the general population in this country, and my sense is that that this will not turn out to be a major issue for the U.S. healthcare system, but there’s still a lot we don’t know about MERS," Dr. Pile says. “The scope of the issue should become much clearer over the next couple of months.”

For more information on MERS, check out this CDC fact sheet.

Read physician editor Danielle Scheurer's recent blog post on the MERS situation.

Visit our website for more information about hospitalists and infectious disease care.

 

 

Patients diagnosed with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Indiana and Florida have healthcare workers and hospitalists on the lookout for additional cases of the potentially fatal respiratory infection.

Hospitalists should pay attention to patients exhibiting fever and respiratory symptoms who traveled to the Arabian Peninsula in the 14 days prior to disease onset, and contact the hospital epidemiologist if MERS is suspected, says James Pile, MD, vice chair of the department of hospital medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

The CDC has reported three cases of MERS this month. The first, reported on May 2, involved a healthcare worker from Saudi Arabia who traveled to Indiana to visit family. The second was reported on May 11, when another visiting healthcare worker from Saudi Arabia checked into the emergency department in Orlando, Fla., after he fell ill with fever, chills, and a slight cough. Both patients are considered to be fully recovered.

The third MERS case is in an Illinois man who had a business meeting with the patient from Indiana and represents the first case of the virus being contracted in the U.S. A blood test confirmed that the Illinois man had been infected with the virus, but he’s reported that he no longer feels sick.

Caused by a coronavirus called MERS-CoV, MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. So far, there have been more than 600 confirmed cases around the world and 181 people have died, according to the World Health Organization.

"The CDC suggests that the index U.S. case represents a very low threat to the general population in this country, and my sense is that that this will not turn out to be a major issue for the U.S. healthcare system, but there’s still a lot we don’t know about MERS," Dr. Pile says. “The scope of the issue should become much clearer over the next couple of months.”

For more information on MERS, check out this CDC fact sheet.

Read physician editor Danielle Scheurer's recent blog post on the MERS situation.

Visit our website for more information about hospitalists and infectious disease care.

 

 

Patients diagnosed with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Indiana and Florida have healthcare workers and hospitalists on the lookout for additional cases of the potentially fatal respiratory infection.

Hospitalists should pay attention to patients exhibiting fever and respiratory symptoms who traveled to the Arabian Peninsula in the 14 days prior to disease onset, and contact the hospital epidemiologist if MERS is suspected, says James Pile, MD, vice chair of the department of hospital medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

The CDC has reported three cases of MERS this month. The first, reported on May 2, involved a healthcare worker from Saudi Arabia who traveled to Indiana to visit family. The second was reported on May 11, when another visiting healthcare worker from Saudi Arabia checked into the emergency department in Orlando, Fla., after he fell ill with fever, chills, and a slight cough. Both patients are considered to be fully recovered.

The third MERS case is in an Illinois man who had a business meeting with the patient from Indiana and represents the first case of the virus being contracted in the U.S. A blood test confirmed that the Illinois man had been infected with the virus, but he’s reported that he no longer feels sick.

Caused by a coronavirus called MERS-CoV, MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. So far, there have been more than 600 confirmed cases around the world and 181 people have died, according to the World Health Organization.

"The CDC suggests that the index U.S. case represents a very low threat to the general population in this country, and my sense is that that this will not turn out to be a major issue for the U.S. healthcare system, but there’s still a lot we don’t know about MERS," Dr. Pile says. “The scope of the issue should become much clearer over the next couple of months.”

For more information on MERS, check out this CDC fact sheet.

Read physician editor Danielle Scheurer's recent blog post on the MERS situation.

Visit our website for more information about hospitalists and infectious disease care.

 

 

Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM, says he plans to bring his passion for improving the U.S. healthcare system to his new role representing the interests of hospitalists as a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine's Board of Directors.

As a founding member of SHM, Dr. Greeno has played a major role in the society's advocacy efforts to Congress on issues of import to hospital medicine. "We’ve gone [to Capitol Hill] offering our expertise … trying to provide [lawmakers with] guidance in their endeavors to create the new healthcare system," Dr. Greeno says. In 2011, his work with the society was rewarded when he became one of a select few to receive SHM's Master of Hospital Medicine (MHM) recognition.

"SHM is a nontraditional professional society in that we do believe in advocacy for members, but we also believe we're advocating for patients and the integrity of the American healthcare system," he says.

On his to-do list as an SHM board member, Dr. Greeno plans to focus on overhauling the observation status admissions system, developing solutions to fix the flawed Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, and improving how the quality of patient care provided by hospitalists is measured.

As executive vice president for strategy and innovation at Brentwood, Tenn.–based Cogent Healthcare, Dr. Greeno says his enthusiasm for system improvement has only increased over the years. In his concurrent role as Chairman of SHM's Public Policy Committee, Dr. Greeno and committee members will continue to provide input on hospital management practices to such federal agencies as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and offer feedback on improving the Affordable Care Act.

SHM Board Member Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, who is treasurer of SHM's Public Policy Committee, says Dr. Greeno's passion for policy is infectious.

"Ron brings an enthusiasm to the issues that really energize the committee," Dr. Harte says. "He does a really good job facilitating an equitable discussion and reaching consensus on a position to recommend to the SHM board."

Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM, says he plans to bring his passion for improving the U.S. healthcare system to his new role representing the interests of hospitalists as a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine's Board of Directors.

As a founding member of SHM, Dr. Greeno has played a major role in the society's advocacy efforts to Congress on issues of import to hospital medicine. "We’ve gone [to Capitol Hill] offering our expertise … trying to provide [lawmakers with] guidance in their endeavors to create the new healthcare system," Dr. Greeno says. In 2011, his work with the society was rewarded when he became one of a select few to receive SHM's Master of Hospital Medicine (MHM) recognition.

"SHM is a nontraditional professional society in that we do believe in advocacy for members, but we also believe we're advocating for patients and the integrity of the American healthcare system," he says.

On his to-do list as an SHM board member, Dr. Greeno plans to focus on overhauling the observation status admissions system, developing solutions to fix the flawed Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, and improving how the quality of patient care provided by hospitalists is measured.

As executive vice president for strategy and innovation at Brentwood, Tenn.–based Cogent Healthcare, Dr. Greeno says his enthusiasm for system improvement has only increased over the years. In his concurrent role as Chairman of SHM's Public Policy Committee, Dr. Greeno and committee members will continue to provide input on hospital management practices to such federal agencies as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and offer feedback on improving the Affordable Care Act.

SHM Board Member Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, who is treasurer of SHM's Public Policy Committee, says Dr. Greeno's passion for policy is infectious.

"Ron brings an enthusiasm to the issues that really energize the committee," Dr. Harte says. "He does a really good job facilitating an equitable discussion and reaching consensus on a position to recommend to the SHM board."

Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM, says he plans to bring his passion for improving the U.S. healthcare system to his new role representing the interests of hospitalists as a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine's Board of Directors.

As a founding member of SHM, Dr. Greeno has played a major role in the society's advocacy efforts to Congress on issues of import to hospital medicine. "We’ve gone [to Capitol Hill] offering our expertise … trying to provide [lawmakers with] guidance in their endeavors to create the new healthcare system," Dr. Greeno says. In 2011, his work with the society was rewarded when he became one of a select few to receive SHM's Master of Hospital Medicine (MHM) recognition.

"SHM is a nontraditional professional society in that we do believe in advocacy for members, but we also believe we're advocating for patients and the integrity of the American healthcare system," he says.

On his to-do list as an SHM board member, Dr. Greeno plans to focus on overhauling the observation status admissions system, developing solutions to fix the flawed Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, and improving how the quality of patient care provided by hospitalists is measured.

As executive vice president for strategy and innovation at Brentwood, Tenn.–based Cogent Healthcare, Dr. Greeno says his enthusiasm for system improvement has only increased over the years. In his concurrent role as Chairman of SHM's Public Policy Committee, Dr. Greeno and committee members will continue to provide input on hospital management practices to such federal agencies as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and offer feedback on improving the Affordable Care Act.

SHM Board Member Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, who is treasurer of SHM's Public Policy Committee, says Dr. Greeno's passion for policy is infectious.

"Ron brings an enthusiasm to the issues that really energize the committee," Dr. Harte says. "He does a really good job facilitating an equitable discussion and reaching consensus on a position to recommend to the SHM board."

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved 27 new molecular entities (i.e., drugs) for human use. Because of their indications, it is unlikely that four will be used in pregnancy or lactation, so they are not discussed here. The four agents are ospemifene (Osphena), an estrogen agonist/antagonist used for severe dyspareunia; [²²³Ra]radium dichloride (Xofigo), for late-stage metastatic prostate cancer; conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene (Duavee) for hot flashes associated with menopause and to prevent osteoporosis; and flutemetamol F-18 injection (Vizamyl), a radioactive diagnostic agent to aid in the evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

There are two other drugs that are unlikely to be used in pregnancy: macitentan (Opsumit) and riociguat (Adempas). These drugs are oral vasodilators indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Both are teratogenic in rats and rabbits, but there are no reports of their use in human pregnancy. For female patients of reproductive potential, they are only available through restricted programs. Pregnancy must be excluded before starting therapy, monthly during treatment, and for 1 month after treatment is stopped.

The remaining 21 agents can be classified into the following categories: anticonvulsant (1), antidepressant (1), antidiabetics (2), antineoplastics (7), antihyperlipidemic (1), anti-infectives (4), diagnostics (2), immunologic (1), and respiratory (2). It is important to note that, except for two drugs (fluticasone in a combination product and dimethyl fumarate), there is no reported human pregnancy experience for these agents. Moreover, all probably cross the placenta to the embryo and/or the fetus, at least in some part of pregnancy.

Eslicarbazepine (Aptiom) is indicated as adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures. Developmental toxicity was observed in three animals: teratogenicity (mice), embryolethality (rats), and fetal growth restriction (rabbits). The no-effect dose was not found in two species, and was less than the human dose based on body surface area in the third. If a pregnant woman is taking this drug, she should be encouraged to enroll in the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry by calling 888-233-2334.

Vortioxetine (Brintellix) is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder. The drug was not teratogenic in animals but did cause developmental delays in one species. Although the antidepressant mechanism is not fully understood, it appears to be related to the inhibition of the reuptake of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine). If so, vortioxetine would be closely related to the drugs in the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class: citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), sertraline (Zoloft), and vilazodone (Viibryd). The relationship could be important because the use of SSRIs or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) close to birth is related to significant toxicity in the newborn.

There are two new antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Alogliptin (Nesina), a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, is in the same pharmacologic class as linagliptin (Tradjenta), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia). Canagliflozin (Invokana) is a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, the first drug in this class to be approved. The animal data for alogliptin suggest low risk, whereas canagliflozin caused renal toxicity in rats at exposures corresponding to the late second and third trimester in humans. Insulin remains the treatment of choice for pregnant diabetics because tight control of glucose levels is beneficial for the mother, embryo-fetus, and newborn.

The seven new antineoplastic agents are ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) for HER2-positive breast cancer; afatinib (Gilotrif) for non–small cell lung cancer; dabrafenib (Tafinlar) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma; ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for mantle cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia; obinutuzumab (Gazyva) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; pomalidomide (Pomalyst) for multiple myeloma; and trametinib (Mekinist) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Only pomalidomide is contraindicated in pregnancy. Although obinutuzumab did not cause teratogenicity in monkeys, its use in the latter portion of pregnancy resulted in newborn depletion of B cells that took up to 6 months after birth to restore. Moreover, it is used in combination with chlorambucil, a known teratogen. The animal data suggest risk in the other five agents. Nevertheless, the maternal condition should determine whether any of these antineoplastics are used in a pregnant woman.

Mipomersen sodium (Kynamro) is given subcutaneously once a week as an adjunct to lipid-lowering medications. The drug caused embryo toxicity in one of three animal species.

Among the four anti-infectives are two oral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection: simeprevir (Olysio) and sofosbuvir (Sovaldi). Because both agents are recommended to be combined with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin, they are classified as contraindicated in pregnancy. However, when used alone, the animal data suggest that sofosbuvir was low risk, whereas simeprevir might have higher risk.

 

Luliconazole (Luzu), an azole antifungal, is a cream used for the treatment of tinea pedis, tinea cruris, and tinea corporis. Systemic absorption is minimal. The animal data suggest low risk, but there are no human pregnancy reports. Nevertheless, topical use is probably compatible in pregnancy, as are the other topical azole antifungals in this pharmacologic class: clotrimazole (Lotrimin), econazole (Spectazole), ketoconazole (Kuric), miconazole (Micatin), oxiconazole (Oxistat), sertaconazole (Ertaczo), and sulconazole (Exelderm).

Dolutegravir (Tivicay) is an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor given in combination with other antiretroviral drugs. The animal data suggest low risk. If indicated, the drug should not be withheld because of pregnancy.

Gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem), a gadolinium-based contrast agent, is indicated to detect and visualize areas with disruption of the blood brain barrier and/or abnormal vascularity. No developmental toxicity was observed in pregnant animals. Closely related diagnostic agents are gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance), gadodiamide (Omniscan), gadofosveset (Ablavar), gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadoteridol (Prohance), and gadoversetamide (OptiMARK). Although the animal data for these agents show risk, no harm has been reported in human pregnancies. However, the available human data are very limited, and the risk magnitude for embryo-fetal harm remains unknown.

Technetium (^99mTc) tilmanocept (Lymphoseek) is a radioactive diagnostic agent used in patients with breast cancer or melanoma. The active ingredient is technetium (^99mTc). Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted. ^99mTc is probably compatible in pregnancy (see Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 10th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2014:1317-8; to be released in August), but the risk of the tilmanocept moiety is unknown.

The immunologic agent dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) is indicated for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused developmental toxicity (embryolethality, impaired growth, and birth defects) in animals during all portions of pregnancy. In clinical trials, there were 38 exposed pregnancies with the following outcomes: 22 live births, 3 spontaneous abortions, 9 elective abortions, 3 ongoing pregnancies, and 1 lost to follow-up (CNS Drugs 2014;28:89-94). A pregnancy registry has been established, and patients should be encouraged to enroll by calling 800-456-2255.

Two new respiratory combination products were approved in 2013, both for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: fluticasone/vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (Anoro Ellipta). Inhaled fluticasone, a corticosteroid, is compatible in pregnancy (see Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 9th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2011:599-601). Vilanterol is a long-acting beta₂-adrenergic agonist that is probably compatible in pregnancy. The absolute bioavailability of inhaled fluticasone and vilanterol in nonpregnant adults was about 15% and 27%, respectively. The animal data for the combination or when given individually suggest low risk in pregnancy. Umeclidinium is a long-acting anticholinergic. It also is absorbed from the lung, but the amount was not specified by the manufacturer. The animal data for umeclidinium suggest low risk.

There are no reports of the above drugs being used during breastfeeding, but excretion into breast milk should be expected. The effect of these exposures on a nursing infant is unknown. However, if a mother is taking one of these drugs and breastfeeding, her infant should be monitored for adverse effects, especially those that are the most common (typically listed on the first page of the package insert) in patients taking the drug. Close monitoring is particularly important during the first 2 postpartum months. A 2003 study found that most adverse reactions in nursing infants occurred within that time period (Clin. Pediatr. 2003;42:325-40).

Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation," and coeditor of "Diseases, Complications, and Drug Therapy in Obstetrics." He had no other relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved 27 new molecular entities (i.e., drugs) for human use. Because of their indications, it is unlikely that four will be used in pregnancy or lactation, so they are not discussed here. The four agents are ospemifene (Osphena), an estrogen agonist/antagonist used for severe dyspareunia; [²²³Ra]radium dichloride (Xofigo), for late-stage metastatic prostate cancer; conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene (Duavee) for hot flashes associated with menopause and to prevent osteoporosis; and flutemetamol F-18 injection (Vizamyl), a radioactive diagnostic agent to aid in the evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

There are two other drugs that are unlikely to be used in pregnancy: macitentan (Opsumit) and riociguat (Adempas). These drugs are oral vasodilators indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Both are teratogenic in rats and rabbits, but there are no reports of their use in human pregnancy. For female patients of reproductive potential, they are only available through restricted programs. Pregnancy must be excluded before starting therapy, monthly during treatment, and for 1 month after treatment is stopped.

The remaining 21 agents can be classified into the following categories: anticonvulsant (1), antidepressant (1), antidiabetics (2), antineoplastics (7), antihyperlipidemic (1), anti-infectives (4), diagnostics (2), immunologic (1), and respiratory (2). It is important to note that, except for two drugs (fluticasone in a combination product and dimethyl fumarate), there is no reported human pregnancy experience for these agents. Moreover, all probably cross the placenta to the embryo and/or the fetus, at least in some part of pregnancy.

Eslicarbazepine (Aptiom) is indicated as adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures. Developmental toxicity was observed in three animals: teratogenicity (mice), embryolethality (rats), and fetal growth restriction (rabbits). The no-effect dose was not found in two species, and was less than the human dose based on body surface area in the third. If a pregnant woman is taking this drug, she should be encouraged to enroll in the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry by calling 888-233-2334.

Vortioxetine (Brintellix) is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder. The drug was not teratogenic in animals but did cause developmental delays in one species. Although the antidepressant mechanism is not fully understood, it appears to be related to the inhibition of the reuptake of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine). If so, vortioxetine would be closely related to the drugs in the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class: citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), sertraline (Zoloft), and vilazodone (Viibryd). The relationship could be important because the use of SSRIs or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) close to birth is related to significant toxicity in the newborn.

There are two new antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Alogliptin (Nesina), a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, is in the same pharmacologic class as linagliptin (Tradjenta), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia). Canagliflozin (Invokana) is a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, the first drug in this class to be approved. The animal data for alogliptin suggest low risk, whereas canagliflozin caused renal toxicity in rats at exposures corresponding to the late second and third trimester in humans. Insulin remains the treatment of choice for pregnant diabetics because tight control of glucose levels is beneficial for the mother, embryo-fetus, and newborn.

The seven new antineoplastic agents are ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) for HER2-positive breast cancer; afatinib (Gilotrif) for non–small cell lung cancer; dabrafenib (Tafinlar) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma; ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for mantle cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia; obinutuzumab (Gazyva) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; pomalidomide (Pomalyst) for multiple myeloma; and trametinib (Mekinist) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Only pomalidomide is contraindicated in pregnancy. Although obinutuzumab did not cause teratogenicity in monkeys, its use in the latter portion of pregnancy resulted in newborn depletion of B cells that took up to 6 months after birth to restore. Moreover, it is used in combination with chlorambucil, a known teratogen. The animal data suggest risk in the other five agents. Nevertheless, the maternal condition should determine whether any of these antineoplastics are used in a pregnant woman.

Mipomersen sodium (Kynamro) is given subcutaneously once a week as an adjunct to lipid-lowering medications. The drug caused embryo toxicity in one of three animal species.

Among the four anti-infectives are two oral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection: simeprevir (Olysio) and sofosbuvir (Sovaldi). Because both agents are recommended to be combined with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin, they are classified as contraindicated in pregnancy. However, when used alone, the animal data suggest that sofosbuvir was low risk, whereas simeprevir might have higher risk.

 

Luliconazole (Luzu), an azole antifungal, is a cream used for the treatment of tinea pedis, tinea cruris, and tinea corporis. Systemic absorption is minimal. The animal data suggest low risk, but there are no human pregnancy reports. Nevertheless, topical use is probably compatible in pregnancy, as are the other topical azole antifungals in this pharmacologic class: clotrimazole (Lotrimin), econazole (Spectazole), ketoconazole (Kuric), miconazole (Micatin), oxiconazole (Oxistat), sertaconazole (Ertaczo), and sulconazole (Exelderm).

Dolutegravir (Tivicay) is an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor given in combination with other antiretroviral drugs. The animal data suggest low risk. If indicated, the drug should not be withheld because of pregnancy.

Gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem), a gadolinium-based contrast agent, is indicated to detect and visualize areas with disruption of the blood brain barrier and/or abnormal vascularity. No developmental toxicity was observed in pregnant animals. Closely related diagnostic agents are gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance), gadodiamide (Omniscan), gadofosveset (Ablavar), gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadoteridol (Prohance), and gadoversetamide (OptiMARK). Although the animal data for these agents show risk, no harm has been reported in human pregnancies. However, the available human data are very limited, and the risk magnitude for embryo-fetal harm remains unknown.

Technetium (^99mTc) tilmanocept (Lymphoseek) is a radioactive diagnostic agent used in patients with breast cancer or melanoma. The active ingredient is technetium (^99mTc). Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted. ^99mTc is probably compatible in pregnancy (see Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 10th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2014:1317-8; to be released in August), but the risk of the tilmanocept moiety is unknown.

The immunologic agent dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) is indicated for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused developmental toxicity (embryolethality, impaired growth, and birth defects) in animals during all portions of pregnancy. In clinical trials, there were 38 exposed pregnancies with the following outcomes: 22 live births, 3 spontaneous abortions, 9 elective abortions, 3 ongoing pregnancies, and 1 lost to follow-up (CNS Drugs 2014;28:89-94). A pregnancy registry has been established, and patients should be encouraged to enroll by calling 800-456-2255.

Two new respiratory combination products were approved in 2013, both for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: fluticasone/vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (Anoro Ellipta). Inhaled fluticasone, a corticosteroid, is compatible in pregnancy (see Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 9th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2011:599-601). Vilanterol is a long-acting beta₂-adrenergic agonist that is probably compatible in pregnancy. The absolute bioavailability of inhaled fluticasone and vilanterol in nonpregnant adults was about 15% and 27%, respectively. The animal data for the combination or when given individually suggest low risk in pregnancy. Umeclidinium is a long-acting anticholinergic. It also is absorbed from the lung, but the amount was not specified by the manufacturer. The animal data for umeclidinium suggest low risk.

There are no reports of the above drugs being used during breastfeeding, but excretion into breast milk should be expected. The effect of these exposures on a nursing infant is unknown. However, if a mother is taking one of these drugs and breastfeeding, her infant should be monitored for adverse effects, especially those that are the most common (typically listed on the first page of the package insert) in patients taking the drug. Close monitoring is particularly important during the first 2 postpartum months. A 2003 study found that most adverse reactions in nursing infants occurred within that time period (Clin. Pediatr. 2003;42:325-40).

Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation," and coeditor of "Diseases, Complications, and Drug Therapy in Obstetrics." He had no other relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved 27 new molecular entities (i.e., drugs) for human use. Because of their indications, it is unlikely that four will be used in pregnancy or lactation, so they are not discussed here. The four agents are ospemifene (Osphena), an estrogen agonist/antagonist used for severe dyspareunia; [²²³Ra]radium dichloride (Xofigo), for late-stage metastatic prostate cancer; conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene (Duavee) for hot flashes associated with menopause and to prevent osteoporosis; and flutemetamol F-18 injection (Vizamyl), a radioactive diagnostic agent to aid in the evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

There are two other drugs that are unlikely to be used in pregnancy: macitentan (Opsumit) and riociguat (Adempas). These drugs are oral vasodilators indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Both are teratogenic in rats and rabbits, but there are no reports of their use in human pregnancy. For female patients of reproductive potential, they are only available through restricted programs. Pregnancy must be excluded before starting therapy, monthly during treatment, and for 1 month after treatment is stopped.

The remaining 21 agents can be classified into the following categories: anticonvulsant (1), antidepressant (1), antidiabetics (2), antineoplastics (7), antihyperlipidemic (1), anti-infectives (4), diagnostics (2), immunologic (1), and respiratory (2). It is important to note that, except for two drugs (fluticasone in a combination product and dimethyl fumarate), there is no reported human pregnancy experience for these agents. Moreover, all probably cross the placenta to the embryo and/or the fetus, at least in some part of pregnancy.

Eslicarbazepine (Aptiom) is indicated as adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures. Developmental toxicity was observed in three animals: teratogenicity (mice), embryolethality (rats), and fetal growth restriction (rabbits). The no-effect dose was not found in two species, and was less than the human dose based on body surface area in the third. If a pregnant woman is taking this drug, she should be encouraged to enroll in the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry by calling 888-233-2334.

Vortioxetine (Brintellix) is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder. The drug was not teratogenic in animals but did cause developmental delays in one species. Although the antidepressant mechanism is not fully understood, it appears to be related to the inhibition of the reuptake of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine). If so, vortioxetine would be closely related to the drugs in the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class: citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), sertraline (Zoloft), and vilazodone (Viibryd). The relationship could be important because the use of SSRIs or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) close to birth is related to significant toxicity in the newborn.

There are two new antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Alogliptin (Nesina), a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, is in the same pharmacologic class as linagliptin (Tradjenta), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia). Canagliflozin (Invokana) is a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, the first drug in this class to be approved. The animal data for alogliptin suggest low risk, whereas canagliflozin caused renal toxicity in rats at exposures corresponding to the late second and third trimester in humans. Insulin remains the treatment of choice for pregnant diabetics because tight control of glucose levels is beneficial for the mother, embryo-fetus, and newborn.

The seven new antineoplastic agents are ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) for HER2-positive breast cancer; afatinib (Gilotrif) for non–small cell lung cancer; dabrafenib (Tafinlar) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma; ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for mantle cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia; obinutuzumab (Gazyva) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; pomalidomide (Pomalyst) for multiple myeloma; and trametinib (Mekinist) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Only pomalidomide is contraindicated in pregnancy. Although obinutuzumab did not cause teratogenicity in monkeys, its use in the latter portion of pregnancy resulted in newborn depletion of B cells that took up to 6 months after birth to restore. Moreover, it is used in combination with chlorambucil, a known teratogen. The animal data suggest risk in the other five agents. Nevertheless, the maternal condition should determine whether any of these antineoplastics are used in a pregnant woman.

Mipomersen sodium (Kynamro) is given subcutaneously once a week as an adjunct to lipid-lowering medications. The drug caused embryo toxicity in one of three animal species.

Among the four anti-infectives are two oral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection: simeprevir (Olysio) and sofosbuvir (Sovaldi). Because both agents are recommended to be combined with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin, they are classified as contraindicated in pregnancy. However, when used alone, the animal data suggest that sofosbuvir was low risk, whereas simeprevir might have higher risk.

 

Luliconazole (Luzu), an azole antifungal, is a cream used for the treatment of tinea pedis, tinea cruris, and tinea corporis. Systemic absorption is minimal. The animal data suggest low risk, but there are no human pregnancy reports. Nevertheless, topical use is probably compatible in pregnancy, as are the other topical azole antifungals in this pharmacologic class: clotrimazole (Lotrimin), econazole (Spectazole), ketoconazole (Kuric), miconazole (Micatin), oxiconazole (Oxistat), sertaconazole (Ertaczo), and sulconazole (Exelderm).

Dolutegravir (Tivicay) is an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor given in combination with other antiretroviral drugs. The animal data suggest low risk. If indicated, the drug should not be withheld because of pregnancy.

Gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem), a gadolinium-based contrast agent, is indicated to detect and visualize areas with disruption of the blood brain barrier and/or abnormal vascularity. No developmental toxicity was observed in pregnant animals. Closely related diagnostic agents are gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance), gadodiamide (Omniscan), gadofosveset (Ablavar), gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadoteridol (Prohance), and gadoversetamide (OptiMARK). Although the animal data for these agents show risk, no harm has been reported in human pregnancies. However, the available human data are very limited, and the risk magnitude for embryo-fetal harm remains unknown.

Technetium (^99mTc) tilmanocept (Lymphoseek) is a radioactive diagnostic agent used in patients with breast cancer or melanoma. The active ingredient is technetium (^99mTc). Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted. ^99mTc is probably compatible in pregnancy (see Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 10th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2014:1317-8; to be released in August), but the risk of the tilmanocept moiety is unknown.

The immunologic agent dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) is indicated for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused developmental toxicity (embryolethality, impaired growth, and birth defects) in animals during all portions of pregnancy. In clinical trials, there were 38 exposed pregnancies with the following outcomes: 22 live births, 3 spontaneous abortions, 9 elective abortions, 3 ongoing pregnancies, and 1 lost to follow-up (CNS Drugs 2014;28:89-94). A pregnancy registry has been established, and patients should be encouraged to enroll by calling 800-456-2255.

Two new respiratory combination products were approved in 2013, both for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: fluticasone/vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (Anoro Ellipta). Inhaled fluticasone, a corticosteroid, is compatible in pregnancy (see Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 9th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2011:599-601). Vilanterol is a long-acting beta₂-adrenergic agonist that is probably compatible in pregnancy. The absolute bioavailability of inhaled fluticasone and vilanterol in nonpregnant adults was about 15% and 27%, respectively. The animal data for the combination or when given individually suggest low risk in pregnancy. Umeclidinium is a long-acting anticholinergic. It also is absorbed from the lung, but the amount was not specified by the manufacturer. The animal data for umeclidinium suggest low risk.

There are no reports of the above drugs being used during breastfeeding, but excretion into breast milk should be expected. The effect of these exposures on a nursing infant is unknown. However, if a mother is taking one of these drugs and breastfeeding, her infant should be monitored for adverse effects, especially those that are the most common (typically listed on the first page of the package insert) in patients taking the drug. Close monitoring is particularly important during the first 2 postpartum months. A 2003 study found that most adverse reactions in nursing infants occurred within that time period (Clin. Pediatr. 2003;42:325-40).

Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation," and coeditor of "Diseases, Complications, and Drug Therapy in Obstetrics." He had no other relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].