Conference Coverage

COPENHAGEN — Relative to starting on an immunomodulator and then switching to a more potent anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, the likelihood of long-term accumulation of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is significantly lower if the more potent drug is started first, according to extension data out to 6 years.

By the most recent analysis of a phase 3 extension study, there were “fewer disability worsening events and greater likelihood of being progression free among those started on ofatumumab than those started on teriflunomide and switched,” reported Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center of Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Stated differently, if ofatumumab is delayed, it never fully compensates for the advantage of better early MS control in treatment-naïve patients, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who presented these data at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
 

Anti-CD20 Disability Protection Already Seen in Pivotal Trial

In two phase 3 trials called ASCLEPIOS I and II that were published together several years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by half (0.11 vs. 0.22). While ARR was the primary endpoint, ofatumumab was also associated with a 34% reduction (P = .002) in risk of confirmed disability worsening at 3 months (3mCDW) at a medium follow-up of 1.6 years.

After the completion of ASCLEPIOS I and II, the majority of both arms of the study were enrolled in the ALITHIOS extension study. Patients in ofatumumab arm have remained on their initially assigned drug. Patients in the teriflunomide group were switched. Characterized as the delayed ofatumumab group, they have been receiving the same 20-mg, once-monthly subcutaneous (SQ) dose of ofatumumab as those initially assigned to this drug. ALITHIOS will continue to follow both groups until 2028.

Patients have now been followed for up to 6 years. In the latest results presented at ECTRIMS, data were available for 690 patients on continuous treatment and 677 switch patients. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About half of each group were treatment naive when enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials.

Whether compared for 6-month confirmed disability worsening (6mCDW), 6-month progression independent of relapse activity (6mPIRA) or 6-month relapse-associated worsening (6mRAW), disease progression was consistently worse for those with delayed ofatumumab. The differences were most pronounced in those who were treatment naive when started on therapy.
 

Anti-CD20 MAB sustains Disability Protection for up to Years

For those who were treatment naive, the rates of 6mCDW at the most recent follow-up were 16.61% vs 23.74% (P = .033) for continuous and delayed ofatumumab, respectively. For the entire study, these rates were 21.09% versus 24.77%, respectively, which represented a strong trend (P = .063).

The relative rates for 6mPIRA (11.12% vs 16.75%) and 6mRAW (4.26% vs 4.82%) in treatment-naive patients also favored continuous over delayed ofatumumab, and the numerical advantage was also seen with up to 6 years of follow-up in the overall study population for 6mPIRA (15.45% vs 16.56%) and 6mRAW (5.24% vs 5.81%).

Translating these into freedom from disability, Dr. Bar-Or reported that more than 80% (83.4%) of patients on continuous ofatumumab were progression free for up to 6 years, a figure that exceeded the 76.3% free of progression in the delayed ofatumumab group.

On the basis of 6mPIRA, that absence of disability progression neared 90% (88.9%) on continuous ofatumumab relative to 83.3% for delayed ofatumumab.

An advantage for a reduction in disability accumulation for ofatumumab relative to teriflunomide was established at the end of the ASCLEPIOS I and II trial, but the latest follow-up shows that it is “sustained out to 6 years.” The advantage is achieved with no greater cost in adverse events during the early treatment period, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who noted that ofatumumab and teriflunomide were similarly well tolerated in ASCLEPIOS I and II.
 

No New Gd T1 Lesions Observed Over 12 Months

Although other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to be highly effective and often more effective than immunomodulators in the first- and second-line treatment of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), another set of data presented at ECTRIMS 2024 looked specifically at transitioning from intravenous (IV) anti-CD20 drugs to SQ ofatumumab.

In this study, called OLIKOS, 102 RRMS patients who had received either IV ocrelizumab or IV rituximab were followed after transitioning to ofatumumab administered SQ with an autoinjector pen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no change or a reduction gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) T1 lesions over 12 months of follow-up.

“At month 12, 84 of 84 evaluable patients with evaluable MRI assessments met the primary endpoint,” reported the principal investigator Le Hua, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Program, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

At 12 months, there were also no new or enlarging T2 lesions in 98% of patients receiving SQ ofatumumab following the transition from one of the other anti-CD20 IV drugs, but Dr. Hua characterized this as an exploratory endpoint.

The safety and tolerability data during the OLIKOS study was also reassuring with no new or unexpected safety signals for SQ ofatumumab, which has been well tolerated in the phase 3 development program. IgM and IgG levels remained stable over the course of follow-up.

High-efficacy anti-CD20 drugs were once reserved for RRMS patients with highly active disease, but long-term data, such as those generated by the ALITHIOS extension study, suggest greater efficacy with acceptable safety of these agents relative to conventional first-line RRMS therapies. Based on ALITHIOS data, Dr. Bar-Or suggested that early use of the most effective therapy appears to lead to better long-term protection from increased cumulative disability.

Dr. Bar-Or reported financial relationships with Accure, Atara, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Hua reported financial relationships with Alexion, EMD Serono, Genentech, Horizon, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.

COPENHAGEN — Relative to starting on an immunomodulator and then switching to a more potent anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, the likelihood of long-term accumulation of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is significantly lower if the more potent drug is started first, according to extension data out to 6 years.

By the most recent analysis of a phase 3 extension study, there were “fewer disability worsening events and greater likelihood of being progression free among those started on ofatumumab than those started on teriflunomide and switched,” reported Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center of Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Stated differently, if ofatumumab is delayed, it never fully compensates for the advantage of better early MS control in treatment-naïve patients, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who presented these data at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
 

Anti-CD20 Disability Protection Already Seen in Pivotal Trial

In two phase 3 trials called ASCLEPIOS I and II that were published together several years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by half (0.11 vs. 0.22). While ARR was the primary endpoint, ofatumumab was also associated with a 34% reduction (P = .002) in risk of confirmed disability worsening at 3 months (3mCDW) at a medium follow-up of 1.6 years.

After the completion of ASCLEPIOS I and II, the majority of both arms of the study were enrolled in the ALITHIOS extension study. Patients in ofatumumab arm have remained on their initially assigned drug. Patients in the teriflunomide group were switched. Characterized as the delayed ofatumumab group, they have been receiving the same 20-mg, once-monthly subcutaneous (SQ) dose of ofatumumab as those initially assigned to this drug. ALITHIOS will continue to follow both groups until 2028.

Patients have now been followed for up to 6 years. In the latest results presented at ECTRIMS, data were available for 690 patients on continuous treatment and 677 switch patients. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About half of each group were treatment naive when enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials.

Whether compared for 6-month confirmed disability worsening (6mCDW), 6-month progression independent of relapse activity (6mPIRA) or 6-month relapse-associated worsening (6mRAW), disease progression was consistently worse for those with delayed ofatumumab. The differences were most pronounced in those who were treatment naive when started on therapy.
 

Anti-CD20 MAB sustains Disability Protection for up to Years

For those who were treatment naive, the rates of 6mCDW at the most recent follow-up were 16.61% vs 23.74% (P = .033) for continuous and delayed ofatumumab, respectively. For the entire study, these rates were 21.09% versus 24.77%, respectively, which represented a strong trend (P = .063).

The relative rates for 6mPIRA (11.12% vs 16.75%) and 6mRAW (4.26% vs 4.82%) in treatment-naive patients also favored continuous over delayed ofatumumab, and the numerical advantage was also seen with up to 6 years of follow-up in the overall study population for 6mPIRA (15.45% vs 16.56%) and 6mRAW (5.24% vs 5.81%).

Translating these into freedom from disability, Dr. Bar-Or reported that more than 80% (83.4%) of patients on continuous ofatumumab were progression free for up to 6 years, a figure that exceeded the 76.3% free of progression in the delayed ofatumumab group.

On the basis of 6mPIRA, that absence of disability progression neared 90% (88.9%) on continuous ofatumumab relative to 83.3% for delayed ofatumumab.

An advantage for a reduction in disability accumulation for ofatumumab relative to teriflunomide was established at the end of the ASCLEPIOS I and II trial, but the latest follow-up shows that it is “sustained out to 6 years.” The advantage is achieved with no greater cost in adverse events during the early treatment period, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who noted that ofatumumab and teriflunomide were similarly well tolerated in ASCLEPIOS I and II.
 

No New Gd T1 Lesions Observed Over 12 Months

Although other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to be highly effective and often more effective than immunomodulators in the first- and second-line treatment of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), another set of data presented at ECTRIMS 2024 looked specifically at transitioning from intravenous (IV) anti-CD20 drugs to SQ ofatumumab.

In this study, called OLIKOS, 102 RRMS patients who had received either IV ocrelizumab or IV rituximab were followed after transitioning to ofatumumab administered SQ with an autoinjector pen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no change or a reduction gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) T1 lesions over 12 months of follow-up.

“At month 12, 84 of 84 evaluable patients with evaluable MRI assessments met the primary endpoint,” reported the principal investigator Le Hua, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Program, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

At 12 months, there were also no new or enlarging T2 lesions in 98% of patients receiving SQ ofatumumab following the transition from one of the other anti-CD20 IV drugs, but Dr. Hua characterized this as an exploratory endpoint.

The safety and tolerability data during the OLIKOS study was also reassuring with no new or unexpected safety signals for SQ ofatumumab, which has been well tolerated in the phase 3 development program. IgM and IgG levels remained stable over the course of follow-up.

High-efficacy anti-CD20 drugs were once reserved for RRMS patients with highly active disease, but long-term data, such as those generated by the ALITHIOS extension study, suggest greater efficacy with acceptable safety of these agents relative to conventional first-line RRMS therapies. Based on ALITHIOS data, Dr. Bar-Or suggested that early use of the most effective therapy appears to lead to better long-term protection from increased cumulative disability.

Dr. Bar-Or reported financial relationships with Accure, Atara, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Hua reported financial relationships with Alexion, EMD Serono, Genentech, Horizon, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.

COPENHAGEN — Relative to starting on an immunomodulator and then switching to a more potent anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, the likelihood of long-term accumulation of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is significantly lower if the more potent drug is started first, according to extension data out to 6 years.

By the most recent analysis of a phase 3 extension study, there were “fewer disability worsening events and greater likelihood of being progression free among those started on ofatumumab than those started on teriflunomide and switched,” reported Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center of Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Stated differently, if ofatumumab is delayed, it never fully compensates for the advantage of better early MS control in treatment-naïve patients, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who presented these data at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
 

Anti-CD20 Disability Protection Already Seen in Pivotal Trial

In two phase 3 trials called ASCLEPIOS I and II that were published together several years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by half (0.11 vs. 0.22). While ARR was the primary endpoint, ofatumumab was also associated with a 34% reduction (P = .002) in risk of confirmed disability worsening at 3 months (3mCDW) at a medium follow-up of 1.6 years.

After the completion of ASCLEPIOS I and II, the majority of both arms of the study were enrolled in the ALITHIOS extension study. Patients in ofatumumab arm have remained on their initially assigned drug. Patients in the teriflunomide group were switched. Characterized as the delayed ofatumumab group, they have been receiving the same 20-mg, once-monthly subcutaneous (SQ) dose of ofatumumab as those initially assigned to this drug. ALITHIOS will continue to follow both groups until 2028.

Patients have now been followed for up to 6 years. In the latest results presented at ECTRIMS, data were available for 690 patients on continuous treatment and 677 switch patients. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About half of each group were treatment naive when enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials.

Whether compared for 6-month confirmed disability worsening (6mCDW), 6-month progression independent of relapse activity (6mPIRA) or 6-month relapse-associated worsening (6mRAW), disease progression was consistently worse for those with delayed ofatumumab. The differences were most pronounced in those who were treatment naive when started on therapy.
 

Anti-CD20 MAB sustains Disability Protection for up to Years

For those who were treatment naive, the rates of 6mCDW at the most recent follow-up were 16.61% vs 23.74% (P = .033) for continuous and delayed ofatumumab, respectively. For the entire study, these rates were 21.09% versus 24.77%, respectively, which represented a strong trend (P = .063).

The relative rates for 6mPIRA (11.12% vs 16.75%) and 6mRAW (4.26% vs 4.82%) in treatment-naive patients also favored continuous over delayed ofatumumab, and the numerical advantage was also seen with up to 6 years of follow-up in the overall study population for 6mPIRA (15.45% vs 16.56%) and 6mRAW (5.24% vs 5.81%).

Translating these into freedom from disability, Dr. Bar-Or reported that more than 80% (83.4%) of patients on continuous ofatumumab were progression free for up to 6 years, a figure that exceeded the 76.3% free of progression in the delayed ofatumumab group.

On the basis of 6mPIRA, that absence of disability progression neared 90% (88.9%) on continuous ofatumumab relative to 83.3% for delayed ofatumumab.

An advantage for a reduction in disability accumulation for ofatumumab relative to teriflunomide was established at the end of the ASCLEPIOS I and II trial, but the latest follow-up shows that it is “sustained out to 6 years.” The advantage is achieved with no greater cost in adverse events during the early treatment period, according to Dr. Bar-Or, who noted that ofatumumab and teriflunomide were similarly well tolerated in ASCLEPIOS I and II.
 

No New Gd T1 Lesions Observed Over 12 Months

Although other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to be highly effective and often more effective than immunomodulators in the first- and second-line treatment of relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), another set of data presented at ECTRIMS 2024 looked specifically at transitioning from intravenous (IV) anti-CD20 drugs to SQ ofatumumab.

In this study, called OLIKOS, 102 RRMS patients who had received either IV ocrelizumab or IV rituximab were followed after transitioning to ofatumumab administered SQ with an autoinjector pen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no change or a reduction gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) T1 lesions over 12 months of follow-up.

“At month 12, 84 of 84 evaluable patients with evaluable MRI assessments met the primary endpoint,” reported the principal investigator Le Hua, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Program, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

At 12 months, there were also no new or enlarging T2 lesions in 98% of patients receiving SQ ofatumumab following the transition from one of the other anti-CD20 IV drugs, but Dr. Hua characterized this as an exploratory endpoint.

The safety and tolerability data during the OLIKOS study was also reassuring with no new or unexpected safety signals for SQ ofatumumab, which has been well tolerated in the phase 3 development program. IgM and IgG levels remained stable over the course of follow-up.

High-efficacy anti-CD20 drugs were once reserved for RRMS patients with highly active disease, but long-term data, such as those generated by the ALITHIOS extension study, suggest greater efficacy with acceptable safety of these agents relative to conventional first-line RRMS therapies. Based on ALITHIOS data, Dr. Bar-Or suggested that early use of the most effective therapy appears to lead to better long-term protection from increased cumulative disability.

Dr. Bar-Or reported financial relationships with Accure, Atara, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Hua reported financial relationships with Alexion, EMD Serono, Genentech, Horizon, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

MILAN — Psilocybin leads to a better overall outcome in the treatment of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) escitalopram, results of the first long-term comparison of the two treatments suggest.

“This is the first work to compare the long-term effects of these two drugs in the context of overall well-being, not just freedom from depression,” study investigator Tommaso Barba, PhD candidate at Imperial College London in England, said in a press release. “Psilocybin outperformed escitalopram in several measures of well-being, meaning in life, work, and social functioning.”

Findings from the 6-month follow-up study of a phase 2 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial were presented at the 37th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and published simultaneously in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine

Addressing a Treatment ‘Mismatch’

The findings are important because they address “a mismatch” between what psychiatrists and what patients think is important, Mr. Barba said in an interview.

“Psychiatrists really focus on negative symptoms of depression. So, if you are not sad anymore, if your sleep or appetite is not impaired, they think you’re better. But if you look at what patients define as important, they say it’s the degree in which their life is meaningful, in which they can connect with people around them, in which they can function in everyday life,” Mr. Barba said.

“The study suggests that psilocybin therapy might be a more holistic treatment option for depression,” added co–first author David Erritzoe, MD, PhD, clinical director and deputy head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research, Imperial College London. “This could make a substantial difference in the overall happiness and daily activities of those suffering from depression, providing a more joined-up approach to mental health treatment.”

The initial single-center study included 59 adults with MDD (mean age, 41 years) who were randomized to receive either psilocybin or escitalopram over a 6-week period. The psilocybin arm (n = 30) received two 25-mg oral doses of psilocybin therapy (PT), and the escitalopram arm (n = 29) received 10-20 mg of daily escitalopram plus two (placebo-like) 1-mg doses of psilocybin (ET). Both groups received psychological support.

Based on change in depression scores on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) at week 6, the initial study results suggested noninferiority between the two treatments in terms of depressive symptoms (primary outcome), but superiority of PT for secondary outcomes including “well-being, anhedonia, social functioning, sexual functioning, and related variables, with fewer side effects compared to ET,” the researchers noted.

The new 6-month follow-up findings, with monthly questionnaires and no additional study treatment or psychiatric treatment restrictions, measured the QIDS-SR-16, plus Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Meaning in Life Questionnaire, Flourishing Scale (FS), and Watts Connectedness Scale (WCS).

Again, both groups maintained similar results on the QIDS-SR-16, with slightly greater reductions in depressive symptoms for PT in the first month (positive false discovery rate [pFDR] = 0.021), but not thereafter.

At both 3 and 6 months, there were greater improvements in WSAS scores for the PT group (pFDR < 0.001 and pFDR = 0.01, respectively), and also greater improvements in meaning in life across all follow-up timepoints (pFDR < 0.001).

There was also greater improvement in the PT group regarding WCS at both 3 and 6 months (pFDR = 0.02, and pFDR = 0.04) and comparable FS improvements for both groups across all timepoints.

Confounding follow-up interventions may have muddied the results, with 30.7% of PT participants and 43.5% of ET participants receiving an additional intervention during this period.

The researchers conclude that while a short course of SSRIs combined with intensive therapeutic support (around 20 hours) “might be enough to induce sustained antidepressant effects,” patients treated with psilocybin showed greater improvements in general functioning, connectedness, and meaning in life.

Although not reassessed in the follow-up, the initial study showed that adverse events, particularly sexual functioning, favored psilocybin, said Mr. Barba. “The two treatments seemed to go in opposite directions with psilocybin seeming to improve it and the antidepressant to suppress it. Other side effects associated with psilocybin were less diverse — mainly headaches at the end of the day — but with escitalopram they were way more diverse and more impairing.”

Although many therapists may be unfamiliar with psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy, “it’s not a difficult skill to master. It might require some specialization, but I think if you’re a good psychotherapist, you can learn how to implement psilocybin into your practice,” he said.

“Normally the journey is quite inward, so patients do not require active support during the psychedelic experience [around 6 hours]. Sometimes they do require some hand-holding, or helping them to ‘let go’, or breathing exercises. The important part is the integration work that comes afterwards,” Mr. Barba added.

He said he envisions a therapy program that involves “psychiatrists working together with psychotherapists. The psychotherapists would be more in charge of the active guiding, and the psychiatrist would do the prescribing, with the follow-up psychological support on Zoom.”

He added a word of caution for therapists that “psilocybin requires active confrontation of painful, negative emotions and people who take this drug need to be open and prepared for the idea that they are going into a state where they may probably end up crying and confronting whatever they are maybe running away from in their lives. Not everyone may want to do this.”
 

A New Treatment Paradigm?

In a comment, Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, said the study addresses a key outstanding question about the long-term effects of one or two doses of psilocybin.

“It’s a 6-month follow-up of a short treatment intervention, so in that sense, it’s of high interest. It has been talked about that psilocybin might have a long-term effect, but this is the first study that has followed this for a longer term.”

But Dr. Lundberg also pointed out that one shortcoming of the study is the diversity of treatments following the intervention.

“They didn’t have control over whether patients received other treatments or when they started. So, that is a key concern. But they transparently reported that, and we do know there was a difference in reported ability to perform activities of daily life, and that is important.”

He added that if psilocybin is eventually approved, it would likely come with an education package for providers — “which is already the case with other treatments like ECT [electroconvulsive therapy] or TMS [transcranial magnetic stimulation] — you have to learn how to do it.”

James Rucker, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and senior clinical lecturer at King’s College London, who was not involved in the research, also noted that they have tended to attribute differences observed in this study to comparative differences between the drugs themselves.

However, he noted, it is also possible that the results reflect biased reporting between groups. This is more likely here because studies involving psilocybin tend to attract those with positive preconceptions about psilocybin and negative preconceptions about conventional antidepressants, and study participants were unblinded during the long-term follow-up phase, so knew which condition they were allocated to.

“This said, the nature of depression varies hugely between individuals, and this calls for the development of a similarly varied suite of treatment paradigms. Psilocybin therapy is certainly a different paradigm of treatment to escitalopram. The observation of similar levels of effectiveness to antidepressants here is encouraging to see alongside the much larger trials of psilocybin currently underway here in the UK, Europe, and the US,” Dr. Rucker added.

This work was supported by The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and by the founding partners of Imperial College London’s Centre for Psychedelic Research.

Mr. Barba reported having received consulting fees from Adamo Bioscience. Both Dr. Lundberg and Dr. Rucker are involved in psilocybin research, but neither reported financial links.

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

MILAN — Psilocybin leads to a better overall outcome in the treatment of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) escitalopram, results of the first long-term comparison of the two treatments suggest.

“This is the first work to compare the long-term effects of these two drugs in the context of overall well-being, not just freedom from depression,” study investigator Tommaso Barba, PhD candidate at Imperial College London in England, said in a press release. “Psilocybin outperformed escitalopram in several measures of well-being, meaning in life, work, and social functioning.”

Findings from the 6-month follow-up study of a phase 2 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial were presented at the 37th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and published simultaneously in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine

Addressing a Treatment ‘Mismatch’

The findings are important because they address “a mismatch” between what psychiatrists and what patients think is important, Mr. Barba said in an interview.

“Psychiatrists really focus on negative symptoms of depression. So, if you are not sad anymore, if your sleep or appetite is not impaired, they think you’re better. But if you look at what patients define as important, they say it’s the degree in which their life is meaningful, in which they can connect with people around them, in which they can function in everyday life,” Mr. Barba said.

“The study suggests that psilocybin therapy might be a more holistic treatment option for depression,” added co–first author David Erritzoe, MD, PhD, clinical director and deputy head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research, Imperial College London. “This could make a substantial difference in the overall happiness and daily activities of those suffering from depression, providing a more joined-up approach to mental health treatment.”

The initial single-center study included 59 adults with MDD (mean age, 41 years) who were randomized to receive either psilocybin or escitalopram over a 6-week period. The psilocybin arm (n = 30) received two 25-mg oral doses of psilocybin therapy (PT), and the escitalopram arm (n = 29) received 10-20 mg of daily escitalopram plus two (placebo-like) 1-mg doses of psilocybin (ET). Both groups received psychological support.

Based on change in depression scores on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) at week 6, the initial study results suggested noninferiority between the two treatments in terms of depressive symptoms (primary outcome), but superiority of PT for secondary outcomes including “well-being, anhedonia, social functioning, sexual functioning, and related variables, with fewer side effects compared to ET,” the researchers noted.

The new 6-month follow-up findings, with monthly questionnaires and no additional study treatment or psychiatric treatment restrictions, measured the QIDS-SR-16, plus Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Meaning in Life Questionnaire, Flourishing Scale (FS), and Watts Connectedness Scale (WCS).

Again, both groups maintained similar results on the QIDS-SR-16, with slightly greater reductions in depressive symptoms for PT in the first month (positive false discovery rate [pFDR] = 0.021), but not thereafter.

At both 3 and 6 months, there were greater improvements in WSAS scores for the PT group (pFDR < 0.001 and pFDR = 0.01, respectively), and also greater improvements in meaning in life across all follow-up timepoints (pFDR < 0.001).

There was also greater improvement in the PT group regarding WCS at both 3 and 6 months (pFDR = 0.02, and pFDR = 0.04) and comparable FS improvements for both groups across all timepoints.

Confounding follow-up interventions may have muddied the results, with 30.7% of PT participants and 43.5% of ET participants receiving an additional intervention during this period.

The researchers conclude that while a short course of SSRIs combined with intensive therapeutic support (around 20 hours) “might be enough to induce sustained antidepressant effects,” patients treated with psilocybin showed greater improvements in general functioning, connectedness, and meaning in life.

Although not reassessed in the follow-up, the initial study showed that adverse events, particularly sexual functioning, favored psilocybin, said Mr. Barba. “The two treatments seemed to go in opposite directions with psilocybin seeming to improve it and the antidepressant to suppress it. Other side effects associated with psilocybin were less diverse — mainly headaches at the end of the day — but with escitalopram they were way more diverse and more impairing.”

Although many therapists may be unfamiliar with psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy, “it’s not a difficult skill to master. It might require some specialization, but I think if you’re a good psychotherapist, you can learn how to implement psilocybin into your practice,” he said.

“Normally the journey is quite inward, so patients do not require active support during the psychedelic experience [around 6 hours]. Sometimes they do require some hand-holding, or helping them to ‘let go’, or breathing exercises. The important part is the integration work that comes afterwards,” Mr. Barba added.

He said he envisions a therapy program that involves “psychiatrists working together with psychotherapists. The psychotherapists would be more in charge of the active guiding, and the psychiatrist would do the prescribing, with the follow-up psychological support on Zoom.”

He added a word of caution for therapists that “psilocybin requires active confrontation of painful, negative emotions and people who take this drug need to be open and prepared for the idea that they are going into a state where they may probably end up crying and confronting whatever they are maybe running away from in their lives. Not everyone may want to do this.”
 

A New Treatment Paradigm?

In a comment, Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, said the study addresses a key outstanding question about the long-term effects of one or two doses of psilocybin.

“It’s a 6-month follow-up of a short treatment intervention, so in that sense, it’s of high interest. It has been talked about that psilocybin might have a long-term effect, but this is the first study that has followed this for a longer term.”

But Dr. Lundberg also pointed out that one shortcoming of the study is the diversity of treatments following the intervention.

“They didn’t have control over whether patients received other treatments or when they started. So, that is a key concern. But they transparently reported that, and we do know there was a difference in reported ability to perform activities of daily life, and that is important.”

He added that if psilocybin is eventually approved, it would likely come with an education package for providers — “which is already the case with other treatments like ECT [electroconvulsive therapy] or TMS [transcranial magnetic stimulation] — you have to learn how to do it.”

James Rucker, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and senior clinical lecturer at King’s College London, who was not involved in the research, also noted that they have tended to attribute differences observed in this study to comparative differences between the drugs themselves.

However, he noted, it is also possible that the results reflect biased reporting between groups. This is more likely here because studies involving psilocybin tend to attract those with positive preconceptions about psilocybin and negative preconceptions about conventional antidepressants, and study participants were unblinded during the long-term follow-up phase, so knew which condition they were allocated to.

“This said, the nature of depression varies hugely between individuals, and this calls for the development of a similarly varied suite of treatment paradigms. Psilocybin therapy is certainly a different paradigm of treatment to escitalopram. The observation of similar levels of effectiveness to antidepressants here is encouraging to see alongside the much larger trials of psilocybin currently underway here in the UK, Europe, and the US,” Dr. Rucker added.

This work was supported by The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and by the founding partners of Imperial College London’s Centre for Psychedelic Research.

Mr. Barba reported having received consulting fees from Adamo Bioscience. Both Dr. Lundberg and Dr. Rucker are involved in psilocybin research, but neither reported financial links.

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

MILAN — Psilocybin leads to a better overall outcome in the treatment of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) escitalopram, results of the first long-term comparison of the two treatments suggest.

“This is the first work to compare the long-term effects of these two drugs in the context of overall well-being, not just freedom from depression,” study investigator Tommaso Barba, PhD candidate at Imperial College London in England, said in a press release. “Psilocybin outperformed escitalopram in several measures of well-being, meaning in life, work, and social functioning.”

Findings from the 6-month follow-up study of a phase 2 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial were presented at the 37th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and published simultaneously in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine

Addressing a Treatment ‘Mismatch’

The findings are important because they address “a mismatch” between what psychiatrists and what patients think is important, Mr. Barba said in an interview.

“Psychiatrists really focus on negative symptoms of depression. So, if you are not sad anymore, if your sleep or appetite is not impaired, they think you’re better. But if you look at what patients define as important, they say it’s the degree in which their life is meaningful, in which they can connect with people around them, in which they can function in everyday life,” Mr. Barba said.

“The study suggests that psilocybin therapy might be a more holistic treatment option for depression,” added co–first author David Erritzoe, MD, PhD, clinical director and deputy head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research, Imperial College London. “This could make a substantial difference in the overall happiness and daily activities of those suffering from depression, providing a more joined-up approach to mental health treatment.”

The initial single-center study included 59 adults with MDD (mean age, 41 years) who were randomized to receive either psilocybin or escitalopram over a 6-week period. The psilocybin arm (n = 30) received two 25-mg oral doses of psilocybin therapy (PT), and the escitalopram arm (n = 29) received 10-20 mg of daily escitalopram plus two (placebo-like) 1-mg doses of psilocybin (ET). Both groups received psychological support.

Based on change in depression scores on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) at week 6, the initial study results suggested noninferiority between the two treatments in terms of depressive symptoms (primary outcome), but superiority of PT for secondary outcomes including “well-being, anhedonia, social functioning, sexual functioning, and related variables, with fewer side effects compared to ET,” the researchers noted.

The new 6-month follow-up findings, with monthly questionnaires and no additional study treatment or psychiatric treatment restrictions, measured the QIDS-SR-16, plus Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Meaning in Life Questionnaire, Flourishing Scale (FS), and Watts Connectedness Scale (WCS).

Again, both groups maintained similar results on the QIDS-SR-16, with slightly greater reductions in depressive symptoms for PT in the first month (positive false discovery rate [pFDR] = 0.021), but not thereafter.

At both 3 and 6 months, there were greater improvements in WSAS scores for the PT group (pFDR < 0.001 and pFDR = 0.01, respectively), and also greater improvements in meaning in life across all follow-up timepoints (pFDR < 0.001).

There was also greater improvement in the PT group regarding WCS at both 3 and 6 months (pFDR = 0.02, and pFDR = 0.04) and comparable FS improvements for both groups across all timepoints.

Confounding follow-up interventions may have muddied the results, with 30.7% of PT participants and 43.5% of ET participants receiving an additional intervention during this period.

The researchers conclude that while a short course of SSRIs combined with intensive therapeutic support (around 20 hours) “might be enough to induce sustained antidepressant effects,” patients treated with psilocybin showed greater improvements in general functioning, connectedness, and meaning in life.

Although not reassessed in the follow-up, the initial study showed that adverse events, particularly sexual functioning, favored psilocybin, said Mr. Barba. “The two treatments seemed to go in opposite directions with psilocybin seeming to improve it and the antidepressant to suppress it. Other side effects associated with psilocybin were less diverse — mainly headaches at the end of the day — but with escitalopram they were way more diverse and more impairing.”

Although many therapists may be unfamiliar with psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy, “it’s not a difficult skill to master. It might require some specialization, but I think if you’re a good psychotherapist, you can learn how to implement psilocybin into your practice,” he said.

“Normally the journey is quite inward, so patients do not require active support during the psychedelic experience [around 6 hours]. Sometimes they do require some hand-holding, or helping them to ‘let go’, or breathing exercises. The important part is the integration work that comes afterwards,” Mr. Barba added.

He said he envisions a therapy program that involves “psychiatrists working together with psychotherapists. The psychotherapists would be more in charge of the active guiding, and the psychiatrist would do the prescribing, with the follow-up psychological support on Zoom.”

He added a word of caution for therapists that “psilocybin requires active confrontation of painful, negative emotions and people who take this drug need to be open and prepared for the idea that they are going into a state where they may probably end up crying and confronting whatever they are maybe running away from in their lives. Not everyone may want to do this.”
 

A New Treatment Paradigm?

In a comment, Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, said the study addresses a key outstanding question about the long-term effects of one or two doses of psilocybin.

“It’s a 6-month follow-up of a short treatment intervention, so in that sense, it’s of high interest. It has been talked about that psilocybin might have a long-term effect, but this is the first study that has followed this for a longer term.”

But Dr. Lundberg also pointed out that one shortcoming of the study is the diversity of treatments following the intervention.

“They didn’t have control over whether patients received other treatments or when they started. So, that is a key concern. But they transparently reported that, and we do know there was a difference in reported ability to perform activities of daily life, and that is important.”

He added that if psilocybin is eventually approved, it would likely come with an education package for providers — “which is already the case with other treatments like ECT [electroconvulsive therapy] or TMS [transcranial magnetic stimulation] — you have to learn how to do it.”

James Rucker, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and senior clinical lecturer at King’s College London, who was not involved in the research, also noted that they have tended to attribute differences observed in this study to comparative differences between the drugs themselves.

However, he noted, it is also possible that the results reflect biased reporting between groups. This is more likely here because studies involving psilocybin tend to attract those with positive preconceptions about psilocybin and negative preconceptions about conventional antidepressants, and study participants were unblinded during the long-term follow-up phase, so knew which condition they were allocated to.

“This said, the nature of depression varies hugely between individuals, and this calls for the development of a similarly varied suite of treatment paradigms. Psilocybin therapy is certainly a different paradigm of treatment to escitalopram. The observation of similar levels of effectiveness to antidepressants here is encouraging to see alongside the much larger trials of psilocybin currently underway here in the UK, Europe, and the US,” Dr. Rucker added.

This work was supported by The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and by the founding partners of Imperial College London’s Centre for Psychedelic Research.

Mr. Barba reported having received consulting fees from Adamo Bioscience. Both Dr. Lundberg and Dr. Rucker are involved in psilocybin research, but neither reported financial links.

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

COPENHAGEN — A new investigational drug has become the first agent to slow disability in patients with nonrelapsing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (nrSPMS).

The phase 3 HERCULES trial showed tolebrutinib, an oral Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, delayed the time to onset of 6-month confirmed disability progression by 31%, compared with placebo.

In addition, tolebrutinib almost doubled the number of patients who experienced confirmed disability improvement from 5% to 10%.

However, these benefits come with the potential safety issue of liver toxicity, with raised liver enzymes reported in 4% of patients and very severe liver enzyme rises occurring in 0.5% of patients, one of whom died after undergoing a liver transplant.  

The results were presented by Robert Fox, MD, vice chair of research at the Cleveland Clinic’s Neurological Institute in Ohio, at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting. 

“We have finally found a therapy that can alter the compartmentalized inflammation that is driving progressive MS,” he said. 

Dr. Fox pointed out that the population enrolled in the HERCULES trial had stopped having clinical relapses. “These are the patients for whom current immunomodulator therapies really don’t work at all — they don’t slow disability. This trial suggests that tolebrutinib can fill that void and now we have something to offer this patient group,” he said. 

He estimated that up to 30% of patients with MS at his clinic may fall into this category. 

A typical patient with nrSPMS who was included in this trial may have experienced a gradual decline in the distance they can walk or the ease with which they could climb stairs, he explained. 

“I would project that this therapy will slow down that gradual decline, and, in some patients, it may actually stop the decline,” he added.

Dr. Fox said that BTK inhibitors are believed to have two main mechanisms of action relevant to MS — down-regulating B cells, probably mostly in the periphery, and, as these agents can cross the blood-brain barrier, they also appear to reduce the inflammatory activity of microglia and macrophages in the brain.

He noted that the disability progression in nrSPMS patients is thought to be caused by compartmentalized inflammation in the brain, which is what tolebrutinib may be targeting. 

He noted that siponimod has also shown benefit in secondary progressive MS in the EXPAND trial, but the benefit was almost entirely restricted to patients who had experienced recent relapses. 

Ocrelizumab has been shown to be beneficial in a trial in primary progressive MS, but again, a large proportion of patients in that study had active focal inflammation at baselineEngl J Med. 2017;376:209-220).
 

Trial Results 

The HERCULES trial included 1131 patients with nrSPMS, defined as having an Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS) between 3.0 and 6.5, no clinical relapses in the previous 24 months, and documented evidence of disability accumulation in the previous 12 months. 

They were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 60 mg tolebrutinib as an oral daily dose or placebo for up to approximately 48 months. This was an event-driven trial, with 288 6-month confirmed disability progression events required. 

About 23% of patients in each group discontinued treatment and 12%-17% who had confirmed disability progression elected to crossover to open-label tolebrutinib.

The study population had an average age of 49 years, had a median EDSS score of 6, and a mean time since last clinical relapse of over 7 years. 

“So, this was a really very quiescent patient population in terms of focal inflammation,” Dr. Fox noted.

Results showed that the primary endpoint showed a 31% reduction in the risk of 6-month confirmed disability progression (26.9% tolebrutinib vs. 37.2% placebo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.88). 

Rates of 3-month confirmed disability progression were 32.6% in the tolebrutinib group versus 41.5% with placebo — a 24% risk reduction.

In addition, 6-month confirmed disability improvement was achieved by 10% of tolebrutinib patients versus 5% in the placebo group (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10-3.21).
 

A ‘Head-scratcher’ Finding

Surprisingly, he noted, tolebrutinib did not appear to slow brain atrophy. 

“Despite seeing a benefit on disability progression, we saw no significant slowing of brain atrophy or brain volume loss over the course of the study,” Dr. Fox reported. 

He described this discordance between disability rates and brain volume loss rates as “a bit of a head-scratcher.” 

In terms of safety, the main concern is liver enzyme elevations, which occurred at greater than three times the upper limit of normal (ULN) in 4.1% of the tolebrutinib group vs 1.6% in the placebo group.

A small (0.5%) proportion of patients treated with tolebrutinib experienced very severe elevations (> 20 x ULN) in liver enzymes, and one of these patients had to have a liver transplant and died because of postoperative complications, “a reminder that this can be a very serious complication of this drug,” said Dr. Fox. 

However, he noted that all the very severe liver enzyme rises occurred in the first 3 months and it is now recommended that patients undergo weekly liver enzyme monitoring for the first 12 weeks of treatment. 

Other adverse effects that were increased slightly in tolebrutinib group were upper respiratory infections and possibly hypertension.  
 

Weekly Liver Enzyme Testing 

Dr. Fox cautioned that patients starting tolebrutinib would need to undergo weekly liver enzyme testing in the first few months of treatment. “They would need to be very attentive to this monitoring, but if they are willing to do that, then I think many of these patients will be very eager to take this drug that may slow down their disability progression.”

The drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi, said the trial results will form the basis for applications to global regulatory authorities with submissions starting later in 2024. 

Commenting on the trial, Ludwig Kappos, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital and University of Basel, Switzerland, said the trial was important as it had shown “a robust effect on confirmed disability progression in a population of secondary progressive MS with no or very low signs of focal inflammation.”

“The effect is similar and probably more pronounced than that seen in the siponimod trial also in advanced secondary progressive MS,” he added. 

Dr. Kappos believes more work will be needed to make sure the liver toxicity can be prevented, “but if that can be resolved then patients could have a significant delay in accumulating disability.”
 

GEMINI Trials Also Show Slowed Disability 

Two other phase 3 trials of tolebrutinib were presented during the same ECTRIMS session — GEMINI 1 and 2 — which compared the new drug with teriflunomide, a standard of care treatment, in participants with relapsing MS. Neither study met the primary endpoint of an improvement in annualized relapse rates, compared with teriflunomide. 

However, with respect to the key secondary endpoint, in a pooled analysis of data from GEMINI 1 and 2, tolebrutinib delayed the time to onset of 6-month confirmed disability worsening by 29%, a finding in line with the main results of the HERCULES trial. 

“The significant impact of tolebrutinib on disability accumulation versus teriflunomide, in the absence of a statistically superior impact on relapses, also suggests that tolebrutinib may address smoldering neuroinflammation, which manifests as progression independent of relapses” Dr. Fox said. 

The HERCULES trial was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Fox is a paid adviser to Sanofi. Dr. Kappos led the EXPAND trial of siponimod in SPMS.

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

COPENHAGEN — A new investigational drug has become the first agent to slow disability in patients with nonrelapsing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (nrSPMS).

The phase 3 HERCULES trial showed tolebrutinib, an oral Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, delayed the time to onset of 6-month confirmed disability progression by 31%, compared with placebo.

In addition, tolebrutinib almost doubled the number of patients who experienced confirmed disability improvement from 5% to 10%.

However, these benefits come with the potential safety issue of liver toxicity, with raised liver enzymes reported in 4% of patients and very severe liver enzyme rises occurring in 0.5% of patients, one of whom died after undergoing a liver transplant.  

The results were presented by Robert Fox, MD, vice chair of research at the Cleveland Clinic’s Neurological Institute in Ohio, at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting. 

“We have finally found a therapy that can alter the compartmentalized inflammation that is driving progressive MS,” he said. 

Dr. Fox pointed out that the population enrolled in the HERCULES trial had stopped having clinical relapses. “These are the patients for whom current immunomodulator therapies really don’t work at all — they don’t slow disability. This trial suggests that tolebrutinib can fill that void and now we have something to offer this patient group,” he said. 

He estimated that up to 30% of patients with MS at his clinic may fall into this category. 

A typical patient with nrSPMS who was included in this trial may have experienced a gradual decline in the distance they can walk or the ease with which they could climb stairs, he explained. 

“I would project that this therapy will slow down that gradual decline, and, in some patients, it may actually stop the decline,” he added.

Dr. Fox said that BTK inhibitors are believed to have two main mechanisms of action relevant to MS — down-regulating B cells, probably mostly in the periphery, and, as these agents can cross the blood-brain barrier, they also appear to reduce the inflammatory activity of microglia and macrophages in the brain.

He noted that the disability progression in nrSPMS patients is thought to be caused by compartmentalized inflammation in the brain, which is what tolebrutinib may be targeting. 

He noted that siponimod has also shown benefit in secondary progressive MS in the EXPAND trial, but the benefit was almost entirely restricted to patients who had experienced recent relapses. 

Ocrelizumab has been shown to be beneficial in a trial in primary progressive MS, but again, a large proportion of patients in that study had active focal inflammation at baselineEngl J Med. 2017;376:209-220).
 

Trial Results 

The HERCULES trial included 1131 patients with nrSPMS, defined as having an Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS) between 3.0 and 6.5, no clinical relapses in the previous 24 months, and documented evidence of disability accumulation in the previous 12 months. 

They were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 60 mg tolebrutinib as an oral daily dose or placebo for up to approximately 48 months. This was an event-driven trial, with 288 6-month confirmed disability progression events required. 

About 23% of patients in each group discontinued treatment and 12%-17% who had confirmed disability progression elected to crossover to open-label tolebrutinib.

The study population had an average age of 49 years, had a median EDSS score of 6, and a mean time since last clinical relapse of over 7 years. 

“So, this was a really very quiescent patient population in terms of focal inflammation,” Dr. Fox noted.

Results showed that the primary endpoint showed a 31% reduction in the risk of 6-month confirmed disability progression (26.9% tolebrutinib vs. 37.2% placebo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.88). 

Rates of 3-month confirmed disability progression were 32.6% in the tolebrutinib group versus 41.5% with placebo — a 24% risk reduction.

In addition, 6-month confirmed disability improvement was achieved by 10% of tolebrutinib patients versus 5% in the placebo group (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10-3.21).
 

A ‘Head-scratcher’ Finding

Surprisingly, he noted, tolebrutinib did not appear to slow brain atrophy. 

“Despite seeing a benefit on disability progression, we saw no significant slowing of brain atrophy or brain volume loss over the course of the study,” Dr. Fox reported. 

He described this discordance between disability rates and brain volume loss rates as “a bit of a head-scratcher.” 

In terms of safety, the main concern is liver enzyme elevations, which occurred at greater than three times the upper limit of normal (ULN) in 4.1% of the tolebrutinib group vs 1.6% in the placebo group.

A small (0.5%) proportion of patients treated with tolebrutinib experienced very severe elevations (> 20 x ULN) in liver enzymes, and one of these patients had to have a liver transplant and died because of postoperative complications, “a reminder that this can be a very serious complication of this drug,” said Dr. Fox. 

However, he noted that all the very severe liver enzyme rises occurred in the first 3 months and it is now recommended that patients undergo weekly liver enzyme monitoring for the first 12 weeks of treatment. 

Other adverse effects that were increased slightly in tolebrutinib group were upper respiratory infections and possibly hypertension.  
 

Weekly Liver Enzyme Testing 

Dr. Fox cautioned that patients starting tolebrutinib would need to undergo weekly liver enzyme testing in the first few months of treatment. “They would need to be very attentive to this monitoring, but if they are willing to do that, then I think many of these patients will be very eager to take this drug that may slow down their disability progression.”

The drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi, said the trial results will form the basis for applications to global regulatory authorities with submissions starting later in 2024. 

Commenting on the trial, Ludwig Kappos, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital and University of Basel, Switzerland, said the trial was important as it had shown “a robust effect on confirmed disability progression in a population of secondary progressive MS with no or very low signs of focal inflammation.”

“The effect is similar and probably more pronounced than that seen in the siponimod trial also in advanced secondary progressive MS,” he added. 

Dr. Kappos believes more work will be needed to make sure the liver toxicity can be prevented, “but if that can be resolved then patients could have a significant delay in accumulating disability.”
 

GEMINI Trials Also Show Slowed Disability 

Two other phase 3 trials of tolebrutinib were presented during the same ECTRIMS session — GEMINI 1 and 2 — which compared the new drug with teriflunomide, a standard of care treatment, in participants with relapsing MS. Neither study met the primary endpoint of an improvement in annualized relapse rates, compared with teriflunomide. 

However, with respect to the key secondary endpoint, in a pooled analysis of data from GEMINI 1 and 2, tolebrutinib delayed the time to onset of 6-month confirmed disability worsening by 29%, a finding in line with the main results of the HERCULES trial. 

“The significant impact of tolebrutinib on disability accumulation versus teriflunomide, in the absence of a statistically superior impact on relapses, also suggests that tolebrutinib may address smoldering neuroinflammation, which manifests as progression independent of relapses” Dr. Fox said. 

The HERCULES trial was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Fox is a paid adviser to Sanofi. Dr. Kappos led the EXPAND trial of siponimod in SPMS.

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

COPENHAGEN — A new investigational drug has become the first agent to slow disability in patients with nonrelapsing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (nrSPMS).

The phase 3 HERCULES trial showed tolebrutinib, an oral Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, delayed the time to onset of 6-month confirmed disability progression by 31%, compared with placebo.

In addition, tolebrutinib almost doubled the number of patients who experienced confirmed disability improvement from 5% to 10%.

However, these benefits come with the potential safety issue of liver toxicity, with raised liver enzymes reported in 4% of patients and very severe liver enzyme rises occurring in 0.5% of patients, one of whom died after undergoing a liver transplant.  

The results were presented by Robert Fox, MD, vice chair of research at the Cleveland Clinic’s Neurological Institute in Ohio, at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting. 

“We have finally found a therapy that can alter the compartmentalized inflammation that is driving progressive MS,” he said. 

Dr. Fox pointed out that the population enrolled in the HERCULES trial had stopped having clinical relapses. “These are the patients for whom current immunomodulator therapies really don’t work at all — they don’t slow disability. This trial suggests that tolebrutinib can fill that void and now we have something to offer this patient group,” he said. 

He estimated that up to 30% of patients with MS at his clinic may fall into this category. 

A typical patient with nrSPMS who was included in this trial may have experienced a gradual decline in the distance they can walk or the ease with which they could climb stairs, he explained. 

“I would project that this therapy will slow down that gradual decline, and, in some patients, it may actually stop the decline,” he added.

Dr. Fox said that BTK inhibitors are believed to have two main mechanisms of action relevant to MS — down-regulating B cells, probably mostly in the periphery, and, as these agents can cross the blood-brain barrier, they also appear to reduce the inflammatory activity of microglia and macrophages in the brain.

He noted that the disability progression in nrSPMS patients is thought to be caused by compartmentalized inflammation in the brain, which is what tolebrutinib may be targeting. 

He noted that siponimod has also shown benefit in secondary progressive MS in the EXPAND trial, but the benefit was almost entirely restricted to patients who had experienced recent relapses. 

Ocrelizumab has been shown to be beneficial in a trial in primary progressive MS, but again, a large proportion of patients in that study had active focal inflammation at baselineEngl J Med. 2017;376:209-220).
 

Trial Results 

The HERCULES trial included 1131 patients with nrSPMS, defined as having an Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS) between 3.0 and 6.5, no clinical relapses in the previous 24 months, and documented evidence of disability accumulation in the previous 12 months. 

They were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 60 mg tolebrutinib as an oral daily dose or placebo for up to approximately 48 months. This was an event-driven trial, with 288 6-month confirmed disability progression events required. 

About 23% of patients in each group discontinued treatment and 12%-17% who had confirmed disability progression elected to crossover to open-label tolebrutinib.

The study population had an average age of 49 years, had a median EDSS score of 6, and a mean time since last clinical relapse of over 7 years. 

“So, this was a really very quiescent patient population in terms of focal inflammation,” Dr. Fox noted.

Results showed that the primary endpoint showed a 31% reduction in the risk of 6-month confirmed disability progression (26.9% tolebrutinib vs. 37.2% placebo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.88). 

Rates of 3-month confirmed disability progression were 32.6% in the tolebrutinib group versus 41.5% with placebo — a 24% risk reduction.

In addition, 6-month confirmed disability improvement was achieved by 10% of tolebrutinib patients versus 5% in the placebo group (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10-3.21).
 

A ‘Head-scratcher’ Finding

Surprisingly, he noted, tolebrutinib did not appear to slow brain atrophy. 

“Despite seeing a benefit on disability progression, we saw no significant slowing of brain atrophy or brain volume loss over the course of the study,” Dr. Fox reported. 

He described this discordance between disability rates and brain volume loss rates as “a bit of a head-scratcher.” 

In terms of safety, the main concern is liver enzyme elevations, which occurred at greater than three times the upper limit of normal (ULN) in 4.1% of the tolebrutinib group vs 1.6% in the placebo group.

A small (0.5%) proportion of patients treated with tolebrutinib experienced very severe elevations (> 20 x ULN) in liver enzymes, and one of these patients had to have a liver transplant and died because of postoperative complications, “a reminder that this can be a very serious complication of this drug,” said Dr. Fox. 

However, he noted that all the very severe liver enzyme rises occurred in the first 3 months and it is now recommended that patients undergo weekly liver enzyme monitoring for the first 12 weeks of treatment. 

Other adverse effects that were increased slightly in tolebrutinib group were upper respiratory infections and possibly hypertension.  
 

Weekly Liver Enzyme Testing 

Dr. Fox cautioned that patients starting tolebrutinib would need to undergo weekly liver enzyme testing in the first few months of treatment. “They would need to be very attentive to this monitoring, but if they are willing to do that, then I think many of these patients will be very eager to take this drug that may slow down their disability progression.”

The drug’s manufacturer, Sanofi, said the trial results will form the basis for applications to global regulatory authorities with submissions starting later in 2024. 

Commenting on the trial, Ludwig Kappos, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital and University of Basel, Switzerland, said the trial was important as it had shown “a robust effect on confirmed disability progression in a population of secondary progressive MS with no or very low signs of focal inflammation.”

“The effect is similar and probably more pronounced than that seen in the siponimod trial also in advanced secondary progressive MS,” he added. 

Dr. Kappos believes more work will be needed to make sure the liver toxicity can be prevented, “but if that can be resolved then patients could have a significant delay in accumulating disability.”
 

GEMINI Trials Also Show Slowed Disability 

Two other phase 3 trials of tolebrutinib were presented during the same ECTRIMS session — GEMINI 1 and 2 — which compared the new drug with teriflunomide, a standard of care treatment, in participants with relapsing MS. Neither study met the primary endpoint of an improvement in annualized relapse rates, compared with teriflunomide. 

However, with respect to the key secondary endpoint, in a pooled analysis of data from GEMINI 1 and 2, tolebrutinib delayed the time to onset of 6-month confirmed disability worsening by 29%, a finding in line with the main results of the HERCULES trial. 

“The significant impact of tolebrutinib on disability accumulation versus teriflunomide, in the absence of a statistically superior impact on relapses, also suggests that tolebrutinib may address smoldering neuroinflammation, which manifests as progression independent of relapses” Dr. Fox said. 

The HERCULES trial was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Fox is a paid adviser to Sanofi. Dr. Kappos led the EXPAND trial of siponimod in SPMS.

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

TOPLINE:

Newborns who go on to develop atopic dermatitis (AD) show higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and cord blood serum levels of CCL17/thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and interleukin (IL) 31.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to evaluate the predictive role of serologic biomarkers and cutaneous markers and the development of AD in 40 full-term newborns from a university hospital in Italy.
• Cord blood was collected at birth and analyzed for serum biomarkers such as CCL17/TARC and IL-31.
• TEWL and skin hydration rates were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months, and dermatological features such as dryness, cradle cap, and eczematous lesions were also monitored during visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, 16 infants had symptoms of AD, which included dry skin, pruritus, and keratosis pilaris, which persisted at 12 months. Their mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 6.6 at 6 months and 2.9 at 12 months.
• Infants with signs of AD had significantly higher TEWL levels at the anterior cubital fossa at 1, 6, and 12 months than those without AD.
• Cord blood levels of CCL17/TARC and IL-31 were significantly higher in infants with AD.
• A correlation was found between TEWL values and CCL17 levels at 1, 6, and 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study highlights the potential of cord serum/TARC and IL-31 levels as predictive markers for AD onset in infancy, in combination with cutaneous markers,” the authors wrote. “Stratified interventions based on these variables, family history, FLG [filaggrin] variations, and other biomarkers could offer more targeted approaches to AD prevention and management, especially during the first year of life,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Angelo Massimiliano D’Erme, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Unit, in the Department of Medical and Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations included the observational design and small sample size, and it was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies and serving as a founder and chairman of a nonprofit organization.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Newborns who go on to develop atopic dermatitis (AD) show higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and cord blood serum levels of CCL17/thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and interleukin (IL) 31.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to evaluate the predictive role of serologic biomarkers and cutaneous markers and the development of AD in 40 full-term newborns from a university hospital in Italy.
• Cord blood was collected at birth and analyzed for serum biomarkers such as CCL17/TARC and IL-31.
• TEWL and skin hydration rates were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months, and dermatological features such as dryness, cradle cap, and eczematous lesions were also monitored during visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, 16 infants had symptoms of AD, which included dry skin, pruritus, and keratosis pilaris, which persisted at 12 months. Their mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 6.6 at 6 months and 2.9 at 12 months.
• Infants with signs of AD had significantly higher TEWL levels at the anterior cubital fossa at 1, 6, and 12 months than those without AD.
• Cord blood levels of CCL17/TARC and IL-31 were significantly higher in infants with AD.
• A correlation was found between TEWL values and CCL17 levels at 1, 6, and 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study highlights the potential of cord serum/TARC and IL-31 levels as predictive markers for AD onset in infancy, in combination with cutaneous markers,” the authors wrote. “Stratified interventions based on these variables, family history, FLG [filaggrin] variations, and other biomarkers could offer more targeted approaches to AD prevention and management, especially during the first year of life,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Angelo Massimiliano D’Erme, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Unit, in the Department of Medical and Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations included the observational design and small sample size, and it was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies and serving as a founder and chairman of a nonprofit organization.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Newborns who go on to develop atopic dermatitis (AD) show higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and cord blood serum levels of CCL17/thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and interleukin (IL) 31.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to evaluate the predictive role of serologic biomarkers and cutaneous markers and the development of AD in 40 full-term newborns from a university hospital in Italy.
• Cord blood was collected at birth and analyzed for serum biomarkers such as CCL17/TARC and IL-31.
• TEWL and skin hydration rates were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months, and dermatological features such as dryness, cradle cap, and eczematous lesions were also monitored during visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, 16 infants had symptoms of AD, which included dry skin, pruritus, and keratosis pilaris, which persisted at 12 months. Their mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 6.6 at 6 months and 2.9 at 12 months.
• Infants with signs of AD had significantly higher TEWL levels at the anterior cubital fossa at 1, 6, and 12 months than those without AD.
• Cord blood levels of CCL17/TARC and IL-31 were significantly higher in infants with AD.
• A correlation was found between TEWL values and CCL17 levels at 1, 6, and 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study highlights the potential of cord serum/TARC and IL-31 levels as predictive markers for AD onset in infancy, in combination with cutaneous markers,” the authors wrote. “Stratified interventions based on these variables, family history, FLG [filaggrin] variations, and other biomarkers could offer more targeted approaches to AD prevention and management, especially during the first year of life,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Angelo Massimiliano D’Erme, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Unit, in the Department of Medical and Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations included the observational design and small sample size, and it was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies and serving as a founder and chairman of a nonprofit organization.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — The nonhormonal investigational drug elinzanetant led to significant improvement in hot flashes as well as sleep disturbance and quality of life, according to data from three randomized controlled trials presented at The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Two phase 3 trials, OASIS 1 and 2, were also published in JAMA, and the longer-term OASIS 3 trial was presented as a poster at the conference.

Elinzanetant is a selective neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, similar to fezolinetant, the first drug in this class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for vasomotor symptoms in May 2023. This class of medications targets the estrogen-sensitive kisspeptin/NK B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons thought to play a role in thermoregulation and hot flashes during menopause. While fezolinetant targets only the NK-3 receptor, elinzanetant is a dual NK receptor antagonist that targets both NK-1 and NK-3. Bayer submitted a New Drug Application for elinzanetant to the FDA on August 1.

For those in whom hormone therapy is contraindicated, “it’s always been difficult for women with really severe symptoms to have a safe and effective therapy,” lead author JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, told this news organization. “The nonhormonal therapies we’ve used mostly off-label — the antidepressants, gabapentin, clonidine, oxybutynin — do help the hot flashes, but they don’t work nearly as effectively as these new NK receptor antagonists, and having one that looks like it might have a broader use for hot flashes, night sweats, mood, and sleep is just really exciting.”

Dr. Pinkerton said approximately 80% of the women in the OASIS 1 and 2 studies had at least a 50% reduction in hot flashes. “It was a very strong, dramatic positive finding, but the improvements in sleep and mood have really encouraged us to go further,” she said.

Declining estrogen levels during and after menopause can cause hypertrophy and hyperactivity of the KNDy neurons, which has been linked to thermoregulation disruptions that may trigger hot flashes, James Simon, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and medical director of IntimMedicine in Washington, DC, told attendees. He presented pooled data from OASIS 1 and 2. The NK-1 receptor, targeted by elinzanetant but not fezolinetant, is also thought to play a role in insomnia and possibly in mood.

“Oftentimes the focus on a lot of these drugs is hot flashes, hot flashes, hot flashes, but we know hot flashes do not occur in isolation,” Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, told this news organization. Elinzanetant is “an interesting compound because it actually works on sleep, and that was critical because sleep disturbance precedes” many other menopausal symptoms, said Dr. Shufelt, who was not involved in the study.

“I think it is an outstanding option for women who don’t have the opportunity to get hormones,” Dr. Shufelt said, and she was particularly pleased to see there were no safety concerns for the liver in the trial data. The FDA issued a warning on September 12 about the risk for rare liver injury with fezolinetant, but the early signals that had been seen in fezolinetant data were not seen in these elinzanetant data.

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials enrolled postmenopausal women, aged 40-65 years, who had at least 50 moderate to severe vasomotor occurrences per week.

“A moderate hot flash is a hot flash that is also associated with sweating, and a severe hot flash is a moderate hot flash that stops a woman in her tracks,” Dr. Simon said. “Namely, it’s severe enough with sweating and central nervous system effects that she is interrupted in whatever it is that she’s doing at the time.”

Exclusion criteria for the trials included a history of arrhythmias, heart block, or QT prolongation; abnormal lab results; history of malignancy within the past 5 years; uncontrolled or treatment-resistant hypertension, hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism; unexplained postmenopausal bleeding; clinically relevant abnormal mammogram findings; or disordered proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia, polyp, or endometrial cancer.

The predominantly White (80%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average body mass index (BMI) of 27.8, and were an average 3.5 years from their last period. For the first 12 weeks of the trials, 399 women were assigned to receive 120 mg once daily of oral elinzanetant and 397 were assigned to once daily placebo. Then the women taking placebo switched to elinzanetant for the final 14 weeks of the study.

The endpoints included mean change in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms at weeks 1, 4, and 12 as well as change in sleep disturbance and quality of life at week 12. Sleep was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form score, which ranges from 28.9 to 76.5, with a higher number denoting greater sleep disturbance. The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life score ranges from 1 to 8, with a higher score indicating poorer quality of life.

Daily frequency of vasomotor symptoms was 14 per day at baseline in the elinzanetant group, decreasing by 4.8 per day at week 1, 8 per day at week 4, and 9.4 per day at week 12. In the placebo group, women had an average 15.2 occurrences per day at baseline, which decreased by 3.2 at week 1, 5.2 at week 4, and 6.4 at week 12. Comparing the groups at 12 weeks, those receiving elinzanetant had 3.2 fewer daily vasomotor symptoms than those receiving placebo (P < .0001).

The severity of vasomotor symptoms also improved more in the elinzanetant group than in the placebo group over 12 weeks, after which severity improved further in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbance scores, starting at a mean 61.5 in the elinzanetant group and 60.5 in the placebo group, fell 10.7 points in the elinzanetant group and 5.3 points in the placebo group at 12 weeks, for a difference of 4.9 points (P < .0001). Sleep then further improved in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant. Quality-of-life scores improved 1.37 points (from 4.52 at baseline) in the elinzanetant group and 0.96 points (from 4.49 at baseline) in the placebo group, for a mean difference at 12 weeks of 0.36 (P < .0001).

Though no head-to-head data exist comparing elinzanetant and fezolinetant, Dr. Simon told this news organization the side effects with fezolinetant “tend to be gastrointestinal, whereas the side effects for elinzanetant tend to be central nervous system,” such as drowsiness and lethargy.

The women who are the best candidates for elinzanetant, Dr. Pinkerton told this news organization, include those who have had an estrogen-sensitive cancer, such as breast or endometrial cancer, or who have fear of it, a family history, or are otherwise high risk. Other ideal candidates include those with a history of venous thromboembolism, people who have migraine with aura (due to concerns about increased risk for stroke), and those who have endometriosis or large fibroids.

“Then the last group might be women who took hormone therapy in their 50s and want to continue, but they’re trying to go off, and they have a recurrence of their hot flashes or night sweats or sleep issues,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “This might be a great group to switch over.”

OASIS 3 assessed the drug for 1 year and “supported the results of OASIS 1 and 2, demonstrating efficacy over a longer study duration and in a population with a vasomotor symptom profile representative of that seen in clinical practice,” Nick Panay, BSc, MBBS, director of the Menopause & PMS Centre at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital & Imperial College London, London, England, and his colleague reported.

Among 628 postmenopausal women aged 40-65, the predominantly White (78.5%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average BMI of 27.6, and were an average 5 years past their last period. Half received 120 mg elinzanetant and half received a placebo for 52 weeks.

At 12 weeks, the women receiving elinzanetant reported an average 1.6 moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms per day, down from 6.7 at baseline. Daily average symptoms in the placebo group fell from 6.8 at baseline to 3.4 at 12 weeks, for a difference of 1.6 fewer occurrences per day in the elinzanetant group (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbances also improved, falling 9.4 points from a baseline 57.4 in the elinzanetant group and 5.7 points from a baseline 58 in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores improved from 4.1 to 2.8 (−1.3 change) in the elinzanetant group and from 4.4 to 3.3 (−1.1 change) in the placebo group.

In addition to looking at treatment-emergent adverse events, the safety assessments also included endometrial biopsies; bone mineral density in the femoral neck, hip, and lumbar spine; weight; and labs. Adverse events related to the study drug occurred in 30.4% of those in the elinzanetant group and 14.6% of those in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.6% elinzanetant vs 7% placebo), fatigue (7% vs 10.2%), and sleepiness (5.1% vs 1.3%). A higher proportion of women taking elinzanetant (12.5%) than those taking placebo (4.1%) discontinued the study.

No serious adverse events deemed to be treatment-related occurred in either group, and no endometrial hyperplasia or malignant neoplasm occurred in either group. Bone mineral density changes in both groups were within the expected range for the women’s age, and their weight remained stable over the 52 weeks.

Six women taking elinzanetant and four taking placebo met predefined criteria for close liver observation, but none showed hepatotoxicity or evidence of possible drug-induced liver injury.

The research was funded by Bayer. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr. Shufelt had no disclosures. Dr. Simon had grant/research support, consulting/advisory board participation, and/or speaking disclosures with AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies, Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, Covance, Daré Bioscience, DEKA M.E.L.A S.r.l., Femasys, Ipsen, KaNDy/NeRRe Therapeutics, Khyria, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Mylan/Viatris Inc, Myovant Sciences, ObsEva SA, Pfizer, Pharmavite, QUE Oncology, Scynexis, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD, Vella Bioscience, and Viveve Medical, and he is a stockholder in Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO — The nonhormonal investigational drug elinzanetant led to significant improvement in hot flashes as well as sleep disturbance and quality of life, according to data from three randomized controlled trials presented at The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Two phase 3 trials, OASIS 1 and 2, were also published in JAMA, and the longer-term OASIS 3 trial was presented as a poster at the conference.

Elinzanetant is a selective neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, similar to fezolinetant, the first drug in this class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for vasomotor symptoms in May 2023. This class of medications targets the estrogen-sensitive kisspeptin/NK B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons thought to play a role in thermoregulation and hot flashes during menopause. While fezolinetant targets only the NK-3 receptor, elinzanetant is a dual NK receptor antagonist that targets both NK-1 and NK-3. Bayer submitted a New Drug Application for elinzanetant to the FDA on August 1.

For those in whom hormone therapy is contraindicated, “it’s always been difficult for women with really severe symptoms to have a safe and effective therapy,” lead author JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, told this news organization. “The nonhormonal therapies we’ve used mostly off-label — the antidepressants, gabapentin, clonidine, oxybutynin — do help the hot flashes, but they don’t work nearly as effectively as these new NK receptor antagonists, and having one that looks like it might have a broader use for hot flashes, night sweats, mood, and sleep is just really exciting.”

Dr. Pinkerton said approximately 80% of the women in the OASIS 1 and 2 studies had at least a 50% reduction in hot flashes. “It was a very strong, dramatic positive finding, but the improvements in sleep and mood have really encouraged us to go further,” she said.

Declining estrogen levels during and after menopause can cause hypertrophy and hyperactivity of the KNDy neurons, which has been linked to thermoregulation disruptions that may trigger hot flashes, James Simon, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and medical director of IntimMedicine in Washington, DC, told attendees. He presented pooled data from OASIS 1 and 2. The NK-1 receptor, targeted by elinzanetant but not fezolinetant, is also thought to play a role in insomnia and possibly in mood.

“Oftentimes the focus on a lot of these drugs is hot flashes, hot flashes, hot flashes, but we know hot flashes do not occur in isolation,” Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, told this news organization. Elinzanetant is “an interesting compound because it actually works on sleep, and that was critical because sleep disturbance precedes” many other menopausal symptoms, said Dr. Shufelt, who was not involved in the study.

“I think it is an outstanding option for women who don’t have the opportunity to get hormones,” Dr. Shufelt said, and she was particularly pleased to see there were no safety concerns for the liver in the trial data. The FDA issued a warning on September 12 about the risk for rare liver injury with fezolinetant, but the early signals that had been seen in fezolinetant data were not seen in these elinzanetant data.

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials enrolled postmenopausal women, aged 40-65 years, who had at least 50 moderate to severe vasomotor occurrences per week.

“A moderate hot flash is a hot flash that is also associated with sweating, and a severe hot flash is a moderate hot flash that stops a woman in her tracks,” Dr. Simon said. “Namely, it’s severe enough with sweating and central nervous system effects that she is interrupted in whatever it is that she’s doing at the time.”

Exclusion criteria for the trials included a history of arrhythmias, heart block, or QT prolongation; abnormal lab results; history of malignancy within the past 5 years; uncontrolled or treatment-resistant hypertension, hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism; unexplained postmenopausal bleeding; clinically relevant abnormal mammogram findings; or disordered proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia, polyp, or endometrial cancer.

The predominantly White (80%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average body mass index (BMI) of 27.8, and were an average 3.5 years from their last period. For the first 12 weeks of the trials, 399 women were assigned to receive 120 mg once daily of oral elinzanetant and 397 were assigned to once daily placebo. Then the women taking placebo switched to elinzanetant for the final 14 weeks of the study.

The endpoints included mean change in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms at weeks 1, 4, and 12 as well as change in sleep disturbance and quality of life at week 12. Sleep was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form score, which ranges from 28.9 to 76.5, with a higher number denoting greater sleep disturbance. The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life score ranges from 1 to 8, with a higher score indicating poorer quality of life.

Daily frequency of vasomotor symptoms was 14 per day at baseline in the elinzanetant group, decreasing by 4.8 per day at week 1, 8 per day at week 4, and 9.4 per day at week 12. In the placebo group, women had an average 15.2 occurrences per day at baseline, which decreased by 3.2 at week 1, 5.2 at week 4, and 6.4 at week 12. Comparing the groups at 12 weeks, those receiving elinzanetant had 3.2 fewer daily vasomotor symptoms than those receiving placebo (P < .0001).

The severity of vasomotor symptoms also improved more in the elinzanetant group than in the placebo group over 12 weeks, after which severity improved further in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbance scores, starting at a mean 61.5 in the elinzanetant group and 60.5 in the placebo group, fell 10.7 points in the elinzanetant group and 5.3 points in the placebo group at 12 weeks, for a difference of 4.9 points (P < .0001). Sleep then further improved in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant. Quality-of-life scores improved 1.37 points (from 4.52 at baseline) in the elinzanetant group and 0.96 points (from 4.49 at baseline) in the placebo group, for a mean difference at 12 weeks of 0.36 (P < .0001).

Though no head-to-head data exist comparing elinzanetant and fezolinetant, Dr. Simon told this news organization the side effects with fezolinetant “tend to be gastrointestinal, whereas the side effects for elinzanetant tend to be central nervous system,” such as drowsiness and lethargy.

The women who are the best candidates for elinzanetant, Dr. Pinkerton told this news organization, include those who have had an estrogen-sensitive cancer, such as breast or endometrial cancer, or who have fear of it, a family history, or are otherwise high risk. Other ideal candidates include those with a history of venous thromboembolism, people who have migraine with aura (due to concerns about increased risk for stroke), and those who have endometriosis or large fibroids.

“Then the last group might be women who took hormone therapy in their 50s and want to continue, but they’re trying to go off, and they have a recurrence of their hot flashes or night sweats or sleep issues,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “This might be a great group to switch over.”

OASIS 3 assessed the drug for 1 year and “supported the results of OASIS 1 and 2, demonstrating efficacy over a longer study duration and in a population with a vasomotor symptom profile representative of that seen in clinical practice,” Nick Panay, BSc, MBBS, director of the Menopause & PMS Centre at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital & Imperial College London, London, England, and his colleague reported.

Among 628 postmenopausal women aged 40-65, the predominantly White (78.5%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average BMI of 27.6, and were an average 5 years past their last period. Half received 120 mg elinzanetant and half received a placebo for 52 weeks.

At 12 weeks, the women receiving elinzanetant reported an average 1.6 moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms per day, down from 6.7 at baseline. Daily average symptoms in the placebo group fell from 6.8 at baseline to 3.4 at 12 weeks, for a difference of 1.6 fewer occurrences per day in the elinzanetant group (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbances also improved, falling 9.4 points from a baseline 57.4 in the elinzanetant group and 5.7 points from a baseline 58 in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores improved from 4.1 to 2.8 (−1.3 change) in the elinzanetant group and from 4.4 to 3.3 (−1.1 change) in the placebo group.

In addition to looking at treatment-emergent adverse events, the safety assessments also included endometrial biopsies; bone mineral density in the femoral neck, hip, and lumbar spine; weight; and labs. Adverse events related to the study drug occurred in 30.4% of those in the elinzanetant group and 14.6% of those in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.6% elinzanetant vs 7% placebo), fatigue (7% vs 10.2%), and sleepiness (5.1% vs 1.3%). A higher proportion of women taking elinzanetant (12.5%) than those taking placebo (4.1%) discontinued the study.

No serious adverse events deemed to be treatment-related occurred in either group, and no endometrial hyperplasia or malignant neoplasm occurred in either group. Bone mineral density changes in both groups were within the expected range for the women’s age, and their weight remained stable over the 52 weeks.

Six women taking elinzanetant and four taking placebo met predefined criteria for close liver observation, but none showed hepatotoxicity or evidence of possible drug-induced liver injury.

The research was funded by Bayer. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr. Shufelt had no disclosures. Dr. Simon had grant/research support, consulting/advisory board participation, and/or speaking disclosures with AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies, Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, Covance, Daré Bioscience, DEKA M.E.L.A S.r.l., Femasys, Ipsen, KaNDy/NeRRe Therapeutics, Khyria, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Mylan/Viatris Inc, Myovant Sciences, ObsEva SA, Pfizer, Pharmavite, QUE Oncology, Scynexis, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD, Vella Bioscience, and Viveve Medical, and he is a stockholder in Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO — The nonhormonal investigational drug elinzanetant led to significant improvement in hot flashes as well as sleep disturbance and quality of life, according to data from three randomized controlled trials presented at The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Two phase 3 trials, OASIS 1 and 2, were also published in JAMA, and the longer-term OASIS 3 trial was presented as a poster at the conference.

Elinzanetant is a selective neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, similar to fezolinetant, the first drug in this class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for vasomotor symptoms in May 2023. This class of medications targets the estrogen-sensitive kisspeptin/NK B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons thought to play a role in thermoregulation and hot flashes during menopause. While fezolinetant targets only the NK-3 receptor, elinzanetant is a dual NK receptor antagonist that targets both NK-1 and NK-3. Bayer submitted a New Drug Application for elinzanetant to the FDA on August 1.

For those in whom hormone therapy is contraindicated, “it’s always been difficult for women with really severe symptoms to have a safe and effective therapy,” lead author JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, told this news organization. “The nonhormonal therapies we’ve used mostly off-label — the antidepressants, gabapentin, clonidine, oxybutynin — do help the hot flashes, but they don’t work nearly as effectively as these new NK receptor antagonists, and having one that looks like it might have a broader use for hot flashes, night sweats, mood, and sleep is just really exciting.”

Dr. Pinkerton said approximately 80% of the women in the OASIS 1 and 2 studies had at least a 50% reduction in hot flashes. “It was a very strong, dramatic positive finding, but the improvements in sleep and mood have really encouraged us to go further,” she said.

Declining estrogen levels during and after menopause can cause hypertrophy and hyperactivity of the KNDy neurons, which has been linked to thermoregulation disruptions that may trigger hot flashes, James Simon, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and medical director of IntimMedicine in Washington, DC, told attendees. He presented pooled data from OASIS 1 and 2. The NK-1 receptor, targeted by elinzanetant but not fezolinetant, is also thought to play a role in insomnia and possibly in mood.

“Oftentimes the focus on a lot of these drugs is hot flashes, hot flashes, hot flashes, but we know hot flashes do not occur in isolation,” Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, told this news organization. Elinzanetant is “an interesting compound because it actually works on sleep, and that was critical because sleep disturbance precedes” many other menopausal symptoms, said Dr. Shufelt, who was not involved in the study.

“I think it is an outstanding option for women who don’t have the opportunity to get hormones,” Dr. Shufelt said, and she was particularly pleased to see there were no safety concerns for the liver in the trial data. The FDA issued a warning on September 12 about the risk for rare liver injury with fezolinetant, but the early signals that had been seen in fezolinetant data were not seen in these elinzanetant data.

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials enrolled postmenopausal women, aged 40-65 years, who had at least 50 moderate to severe vasomotor occurrences per week.

“A moderate hot flash is a hot flash that is also associated with sweating, and a severe hot flash is a moderate hot flash that stops a woman in her tracks,” Dr. Simon said. “Namely, it’s severe enough with sweating and central nervous system effects that she is interrupted in whatever it is that she’s doing at the time.”

Exclusion criteria for the trials included a history of arrhythmias, heart block, or QT prolongation; abnormal lab results; history of malignancy within the past 5 years; uncontrolled or treatment-resistant hypertension, hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism; unexplained postmenopausal bleeding; clinically relevant abnormal mammogram findings; or disordered proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia, polyp, or endometrial cancer.

The predominantly White (80%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average body mass index (BMI) of 27.8, and were an average 3.5 years from their last period. For the first 12 weeks of the trials, 399 women were assigned to receive 120 mg once daily of oral elinzanetant and 397 were assigned to once daily placebo. Then the women taking placebo switched to elinzanetant for the final 14 weeks of the study.

The endpoints included mean change in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms at weeks 1, 4, and 12 as well as change in sleep disturbance and quality of life at week 12. Sleep was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form score, which ranges from 28.9 to 76.5, with a higher number denoting greater sleep disturbance. The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life score ranges from 1 to 8, with a higher score indicating poorer quality of life.

Daily frequency of vasomotor symptoms was 14 per day at baseline in the elinzanetant group, decreasing by 4.8 per day at week 1, 8 per day at week 4, and 9.4 per day at week 12. In the placebo group, women had an average 15.2 occurrences per day at baseline, which decreased by 3.2 at week 1, 5.2 at week 4, and 6.4 at week 12. Comparing the groups at 12 weeks, those receiving elinzanetant had 3.2 fewer daily vasomotor symptoms than those receiving placebo (P < .0001).

The severity of vasomotor symptoms also improved more in the elinzanetant group than in the placebo group over 12 weeks, after which severity improved further in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbance scores, starting at a mean 61.5 in the elinzanetant group and 60.5 in the placebo group, fell 10.7 points in the elinzanetant group and 5.3 points in the placebo group at 12 weeks, for a difference of 4.9 points (P < .0001). Sleep then further improved in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant. Quality-of-life scores improved 1.37 points (from 4.52 at baseline) in the elinzanetant group and 0.96 points (from 4.49 at baseline) in the placebo group, for a mean difference at 12 weeks of 0.36 (P < .0001).

Though no head-to-head data exist comparing elinzanetant and fezolinetant, Dr. Simon told this news organization the side effects with fezolinetant “tend to be gastrointestinal, whereas the side effects for elinzanetant tend to be central nervous system,” such as drowsiness and lethargy.

The women who are the best candidates for elinzanetant, Dr. Pinkerton told this news organization, include those who have had an estrogen-sensitive cancer, such as breast or endometrial cancer, or who have fear of it, a family history, or are otherwise high risk. Other ideal candidates include those with a history of venous thromboembolism, people who have migraine with aura (due to concerns about increased risk for stroke), and those who have endometriosis or large fibroids.

“Then the last group might be women who took hormone therapy in their 50s and want to continue, but they’re trying to go off, and they have a recurrence of their hot flashes or night sweats or sleep issues,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “This might be a great group to switch over.”

OASIS 3 assessed the drug for 1 year and “supported the results of OASIS 1 and 2, demonstrating efficacy over a longer study duration and in a population with a vasomotor symptom profile representative of that seen in clinical practice,” Nick Panay, BSc, MBBS, director of the Menopause & PMS Centre at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital & Imperial College London, London, England, and his colleague reported.

Among 628 postmenopausal women aged 40-65, the predominantly White (78.5%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average BMI of 27.6, and were an average 5 years past their last period. Half received 120 mg elinzanetant and half received a placebo for 52 weeks.

At 12 weeks, the women receiving elinzanetant reported an average 1.6 moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms per day, down from 6.7 at baseline. Daily average symptoms in the placebo group fell from 6.8 at baseline to 3.4 at 12 weeks, for a difference of 1.6 fewer occurrences per day in the elinzanetant group (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbances also improved, falling 9.4 points from a baseline 57.4 in the elinzanetant group and 5.7 points from a baseline 58 in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores improved from 4.1 to 2.8 (−1.3 change) in the elinzanetant group and from 4.4 to 3.3 (−1.1 change) in the placebo group.

In addition to looking at treatment-emergent adverse events, the safety assessments also included endometrial biopsies; bone mineral density in the femoral neck, hip, and lumbar spine; weight; and labs. Adverse events related to the study drug occurred in 30.4% of those in the elinzanetant group and 14.6% of those in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.6% elinzanetant vs 7% placebo), fatigue (7% vs 10.2%), and sleepiness (5.1% vs 1.3%). A higher proportion of women taking elinzanetant (12.5%) than those taking placebo (4.1%) discontinued the study.

No serious adverse events deemed to be treatment-related occurred in either group, and no endometrial hyperplasia or malignant neoplasm occurred in either group. Bone mineral density changes in both groups were within the expected range for the women’s age, and their weight remained stable over the 52 weeks.

Six women taking elinzanetant and four taking placebo met predefined criteria for close liver observation, but none showed hepatotoxicity or evidence of possible drug-induced liver injury.

The research was funded by Bayer. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr. Shufelt had no disclosures. Dr. Simon had grant/research support, consulting/advisory board participation, and/or speaking disclosures with AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies, Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, Covance, Daré Bioscience, DEKA M.E.L.A S.r.l., Femasys, Ipsen, KaNDy/NeRRe Therapeutics, Khyria, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Mylan/Viatris Inc, Myovant Sciences, ObsEva SA, Pfizer, Pharmavite, QUE Oncology, Scynexis, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD, Vella Bioscience, and Viveve Medical, and he is a stockholder in Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

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

COPENHAGEN — There were high hopes that simvastatin, a well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, would reduce disability progression in patients with nonflaring secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but a definitive multicenter double-blind randomized trial found no benefit at all.

“There was no effect on the primary outcome of confirmed progression or on any of the secondary outcomes,” reported Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, consultant neurologist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London, England.

For the primary outcome of progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the nonsignificant hazard ratio (HR) was, in fact, in favor of placebo (HR, 1.13; P = .26) over 45 months of follow-up and 365 progression events.
 

No Meaningful Difference Between Study Arms

“There were wide confidence intervals [95% CI, 0.91-1.39], so, really, there were no differences between the two arms,” reported Dr. Chataway, who presented the simvastatin trial, called MS-STAT2, during the late-breaker session of the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

Over a period of more than 20 years, a series of experimental and clinical studies have indicated that simvastatin and other CoA reductase inhibitors have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. These studies were the basis for the first MED-STAT study, which was a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in 2014.

Although this study did not have a clinical endpoint, it associated simvastatin with a 43% reduction (P = .003) in the annualized rate of brain atrophy, which has been widely accepted as a surrogate measure of MS progression.

In MS-STAT2, 964 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. An established diagnosis of SPMS, an age of 25-65, and an EDSS score of 4.0-6.5 were among the inclusion criteria. Patients were required to be relapse-free for at least 3 months prior to study entry.

Importantly, patients were excluded if they were taking statin-lowering therapies or were candidates for these therapies due to the presence of cardiovascular disease. They were also excluded from entering the trial if taking immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or azathioprine, or had exposure to monoclonal antibodies employed in the treatment of MS, such as natalizumab and alemtuzumab, in the prior 12 months.

Randomized to 80 mg of simvastatin (40 mg in the first month followed by rapid upward titration) or placebo in a 1:1 fashion, patients remained on their assigned therapy for 3 years in the absence of progression. At the end of this time, patients who remained progression-free could continue for up to 45 months while still blinded to treatment assignment.

Even though a large proportion of patients who were eligible to remain in the study for the full 45 months did so, the retention did not reflect clinical improvement.

Indeed, the secondary endpoints also produced no signal of benefit. On a composite secondary endpoint of EDSS, ambulation in the form of the 25-foot walk, and upper extremity function in the form of the 9-hole peg test (9-HPT), the numerical odds ratio (OR) went in the wrong direction for simvastatin although the difference was not significant (OR, 1.17; P = .26).
 

Annualized Relapse Rate Numerically Higher on Simvastatin

The annualized relapse rate, another secondary endpoint, was low in both arms of the study at 0.05 relapses/year for placebo and 0.7 relapses/year for simvastatin. Again, this result, although numerically unfavorable for simvastatin did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.43; P = .04).

Simvastatin had a placebo-like safety profile. The single case of rhabdomyolysis in the simvastatin arm, which occurred early after randomization, resolved. Otherwise, simvastatin was well tolerated.

Conducted before and through the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of progression events tripled in the year after the COVID-19 pandemic started relative to the prior year. At the end of the pandemic, progression events returned to a level similar to that before its onset. However, although Dr. Chataway noted this was an interesting example of comorbidities exacerbating MS, he emphasized that this increase was similar in the simvastatin and placebo arms.

There are more analyses to come, including patient-reported outcomes, biomarker analyses, and further comparisons of change in MRIs, but Dr. Chataway acknowledged that the study provided no support for the underlying hypothesis.

Several experts commenting after the study was presented, including Ludwig Kappos, MD, PhD, Chair of Neurology at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, agreed.

“Unfortunately, these results are quite disappointing,” he said. When asked if there is any rationale for further pursuing studies of simvastatin for the treatment of SPMS, he said no.

“These data are quite convincing that there is no benefit. I do not see where you could go from here,” Dr. Kappos said in an interview.

Dr. Chataway, asked the same question, reiterated that there are a number of preplanned analyses that will be completed, but he does not foresee further studies with simvastatin for the indication studied in MS-STAT-2 trial.

However, he also emphasized strongly that simvastatin or any other lipid-lowering therapy should not be withheld from MS patients that need these drugs for a cardiovascular indication.

“We saw no benefit seen from simvastatin for patients with stable SPMS, but these drugs were well tolerated and they can be life-saving therapies for patients with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Chataway said.

Dr, Chataway reported financial relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Ionis, Lucid, Merck NerveGen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Kappos reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. The MS-STAT2 trial received no funding from industry.

COPENHAGEN — There were high hopes that simvastatin, a well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, would reduce disability progression in patients with nonflaring secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but a definitive multicenter double-blind randomized trial found no benefit at all.

“There was no effect on the primary outcome of confirmed progression or on any of the secondary outcomes,” reported Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, consultant neurologist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London, England.

For the primary outcome of progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the nonsignificant hazard ratio (HR) was, in fact, in favor of placebo (HR, 1.13; P = .26) over 45 months of follow-up and 365 progression events.
 

No Meaningful Difference Between Study Arms

“There were wide confidence intervals [95% CI, 0.91-1.39], so, really, there were no differences between the two arms,” reported Dr. Chataway, who presented the simvastatin trial, called MS-STAT2, during the late-breaker session of the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

Over a period of more than 20 years, a series of experimental and clinical studies have indicated that simvastatin and other CoA reductase inhibitors have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. These studies were the basis for the first MED-STAT study, which was a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in 2014.

Although this study did not have a clinical endpoint, it associated simvastatin with a 43% reduction (P = .003) in the annualized rate of brain atrophy, which has been widely accepted as a surrogate measure of MS progression.

In MS-STAT2, 964 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. An established diagnosis of SPMS, an age of 25-65, and an EDSS score of 4.0-6.5 were among the inclusion criteria. Patients were required to be relapse-free for at least 3 months prior to study entry.

Importantly, patients were excluded if they were taking statin-lowering therapies or were candidates for these therapies due to the presence of cardiovascular disease. They were also excluded from entering the trial if taking immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or azathioprine, or had exposure to monoclonal antibodies employed in the treatment of MS, such as natalizumab and alemtuzumab, in the prior 12 months.

Randomized to 80 mg of simvastatin (40 mg in the first month followed by rapid upward titration) or placebo in a 1:1 fashion, patients remained on their assigned therapy for 3 years in the absence of progression. At the end of this time, patients who remained progression-free could continue for up to 45 months while still blinded to treatment assignment.

Even though a large proportion of patients who were eligible to remain in the study for the full 45 months did so, the retention did not reflect clinical improvement.

Indeed, the secondary endpoints also produced no signal of benefit. On a composite secondary endpoint of EDSS, ambulation in the form of the 25-foot walk, and upper extremity function in the form of the 9-hole peg test (9-HPT), the numerical odds ratio (OR) went in the wrong direction for simvastatin although the difference was not significant (OR, 1.17; P = .26).
 

Annualized Relapse Rate Numerically Higher on Simvastatin

The annualized relapse rate, another secondary endpoint, was low in both arms of the study at 0.05 relapses/year for placebo and 0.7 relapses/year for simvastatin. Again, this result, although numerically unfavorable for simvastatin did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.43; P = .04).

Simvastatin had a placebo-like safety profile. The single case of rhabdomyolysis in the simvastatin arm, which occurred early after randomization, resolved. Otherwise, simvastatin was well tolerated.

Conducted before and through the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of progression events tripled in the year after the COVID-19 pandemic started relative to the prior year. At the end of the pandemic, progression events returned to a level similar to that before its onset. However, although Dr. Chataway noted this was an interesting example of comorbidities exacerbating MS, he emphasized that this increase was similar in the simvastatin and placebo arms.

There are more analyses to come, including patient-reported outcomes, biomarker analyses, and further comparisons of change in MRIs, but Dr. Chataway acknowledged that the study provided no support for the underlying hypothesis.

Several experts commenting after the study was presented, including Ludwig Kappos, MD, PhD, Chair of Neurology at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, agreed.

“Unfortunately, these results are quite disappointing,” he said. When asked if there is any rationale for further pursuing studies of simvastatin for the treatment of SPMS, he said no.

“These data are quite convincing that there is no benefit. I do not see where you could go from here,” Dr. Kappos said in an interview.

Dr. Chataway, asked the same question, reiterated that there are a number of preplanned analyses that will be completed, but he does not foresee further studies with simvastatin for the indication studied in MS-STAT-2 trial.

However, he also emphasized strongly that simvastatin or any other lipid-lowering therapy should not be withheld from MS patients that need these drugs for a cardiovascular indication.

“We saw no benefit seen from simvastatin for patients with stable SPMS, but these drugs were well tolerated and they can be life-saving therapies for patients with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Chataway said.

Dr, Chataway reported financial relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Ionis, Lucid, Merck NerveGen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Kappos reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. The MS-STAT2 trial received no funding from industry.

COPENHAGEN — There were high hopes that simvastatin, a well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, would reduce disability progression in patients with nonflaring secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but a definitive multicenter double-blind randomized trial found no benefit at all.

“There was no effect on the primary outcome of confirmed progression or on any of the secondary outcomes,” reported Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, consultant neurologist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London, England.

For the primary outcome of progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the nonsignificant hazard ratio (HR) was, in fact, in favor of placebo (HR, 1.13; P = .26) over 45 months of follow-up and 365 progression events.
 

No Meaningful Difference Between Study Arms

“There were wide confidence intervals [95% CI, 0.91-1.39], so, really, there were no differences between the two arms,” reported Dr. Chataway, who presented the simvastatin trial, called MS-STAT2, during the late-breaker session of the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

Over a period of more than 20 years, a series of experimental and clinical studies have indicated that simvastatin and other CoA reductase inhibitors have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. These studies were the basis for the first MED-STAT study, which was a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in 2014.

Although this study did not have a clinical endpoint, it associated simvastatin with a 43% reduction (P = .003) in the annualized rate of brain atrophy, which has been widely accepted as a surrogate measure of MS progression.

In MS-STAT2, 964 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. An established diagnosis of SPMS, an age of 25-65, and an EDSS score of 4.0-6.5 were among the inclusion criteria. Patients were required to be relapse-free for at least 3 months prior to study entry.

Importantly, patients were excluded if they were taking statin-lowering therapies or were candidates for these therapies due to the presence of cardiovascular disease. They were also excluded from entering the trial if taking immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or azathioprine, or had exposure to monoclonal antibodies employed in the treatment of MS, such as natalizumab and alemtuzumab, in the prior 12 months.

Randomized to 80 mg of simvastatin (40 mg in the first month followed by rapid upward titration) or placebo in a 1:1 fashion, patients remained on their assigned therapy for 3 years in the absence of progression. At the end of this time, patients who remained progression-free could continue for up to 45 months while still blinded to treatment assignment.

Even though a large proportion of patients who were eligible to remain in the study for the full 45 months did so, the retention did not reflect clinical improvement.

Indeed, the secondary endpoints also produced no signal of benefit. On a composite secondary endpoint of EDSS, ambulation in the form of the 25-foot walk, and upper extremity function in the form of the 9-hole peg test (9-HPT), the numerical odds ratio (OR) went in the wrong direction for simvastatin although the difference was not significant (OR, 1.17; P = .26).
 

Annualized Relapse Rate Numerically Higher on Simvastatin

The annualized relapse rate, another secondary endpoint, was low in both arms of the study at 0.05 relapses/year for placebo and 0.7 relapses/year for simvastatin. Again, this result, although numerically unfavorable for simvastatin did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.43; P = .04).

Simvastatin had a placebo-like safety profile. The single case of rhabdomyolysis in the simvastatin arm, which occurred early after randomization, resolved. Otherwise, simvastatin was well tolerated.

Conducted before and through the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of progression events tripled in the year after the COVID-19 pandemic started relative to the prior year. At the end of the pandemic, progression events returned to a level similar to that before its onset. However, although Dr. Chataway noted this was an interesting example of comorbidities exacerbating MS, he emphasized that this increase was similar in the simvastatin and placebo arms.

There are more analyses to come, including patient-reported outcomes, biomarker analyses, and further comparisons of change in MRIs, but Dr. Chataway acknowledged that the study provided no support for the underlying hypothesis.

Several experts commenting after the study was presented, including Ludwig Kappos, MD, PhD, Chair of Neurology at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, agreed.

“Unfortunately, these results are quite disappointing,” he said. When asked if there is any rationale for further pursuing studies of simvastatin for the treatment of SPMS, he said no.

“These data are quite convincing that there is no benefit. I do not see where you could go from here,” Dr. Kappos said in an interview.

Dr. Chataway, asked the same question, reiterated that there are a number of preplanned analyses that will be completed, but he does not foresee further studies with simvastatin for the indication studied in MS-STAT-2 trial.

However, he also emphasized strongly that simvastatin or any other lipid-lowering therapy should not be withheld from MS patients that need these drugs for a cardiovascular indication.

“We saw no benefit seen from simvastatin for patients with stable SPMS, but these drugs were well tolerated and they can be life-saving therapies for patients with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Chataway said.

Dr, Chataway reported financial relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Ionis, Lucid, Merck NerveGen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Kappos reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. The MS-STAT2 trial received no funding from industry.

An epilepsy drug sold in Europe as Ospolot and also known as sulthiame showed promise in reducing sleep disordered breathing and other symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), based on data from nearly 300 individuals presented in a late-breaking study at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Current therapies are mechanical and based on the notion of an airway splint,” presenting author Jan Hedner, MD, professor of respiratory medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, both in Sweden, said in an interview. “In other words, applying an airflow at elevated pressure [continuous positive airway pressure] or advancing the jaw with a dental device. Adherence to this type of therapy is limited. In the case of continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], it is < 50% after 3-4 years of therapy.” Therefore, there is a need for a better-tolerated therapy, such as a drug, and possibly a combination of mechanical and pharmaceutical therapies.

The use of medication has emerged as a viable option for OSA, with a high rate of compliance and acceptable safety profile, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

“Modified carbonic anhydrase activity may be a pathophysiological mechanism in OSA,” said Dr. Hedner. Sulthiame, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, showed safety and effectiveness for improving OSA in a previous phase 2b trial.

In the current study, the researchers sought to determine the most effective dose of sulthiame for patients with OSA. They randomized 298 adults with OSA who could not accept or tolerate oral splints or CPAP to 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg of sulthiame daily (74, 74, and 75 patients, respectively) or placebo (75 patients).

The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 26.2% were women, and the average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI3a) at baseline was 29 n/h. Patients were treated at centers in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar among the treatment groups.

The primary endpoint was the change in AHI3a from baseline to 15 weeks, and significant changes occurred in patients who received the 100-mg, 200-mg, and 300-mg doses, with decreases of 17.8%, 34.8%, and 39.9%, respectively.

Peak efficacy occurred in the range of 200-300 mg and was similar for patients with moderate or severe OSA, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

Notably, in a post hoc analysis, apnea improved by 47.1% at a 300-mg dose when the AHI4 measure (apnea/hypopnea with ≥ 4% O₂ desaturation) was used in a placebo-adjusted dose-dependent reduction, the researchers wrote. The changes in AHI4 from baseline in this analysis also were significant for 200 mg and 100 mg doses (36.8% and 26.2%, respectively).

Patients underwent polysomnography at baseline and at weeks 4 and 12.

Mean overnight oxygen saturation also improved significantly from baseline with doses of 200 mg and 300 mg, compared with placebo (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) improved from baseline to week 15 in all dosage groups, and the subgroup of patients with ESS scores of ≥ 11 at baseline showed even greater improvement in ESS, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

Total arousal index and sleep quality also improved from baseline compared with placebo, and no clinically relevant reduction in REM sleep was noted, Dr. Hedner added.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with the known safety profile of sulthiame and included paresthesia, headache, fatigue, and nausea; these were mainly moderate and dose-dependent, with no evidence of cardiovascular safety issues, he said.

Although the study results were not surprising given previous research, the investigators were pleased with the potency of the therapy. “We are also happy about potential added values such as a blood pressure lowering effect, which is beneficial in this group of patients; however, we need to further study these mechanisms in detail,” Dr. Hedner noted.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small scale, and larger studies on long-term efficacy and tolerability are also needed, he said.

“The current study was a dose-finding study, and we now have useful information on most suitable dose,” he said.

However, the results support sulthiame as an effective, well-tolerated, and promising novel candidate for drug therapy in patients with OSA, worthy of phase 3 studies, Dr. Hedner said.
 

Oral Option Could Be Game-Changer, But Not Yet

The gold standard of treatment for OSA is a CPAP machine, but the effectiveness is limited by patient tolerance, Q. Afifa Shamim-Uzzaman, MD, an associate professor and a sleep medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“Presently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for OSA — having a pill that treats OSA would be a total game changer and huge advance for the treatment of OSA and the field of sleep medicine,” said Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman, who was not involved in the study. “More patients may be able to obtain treatment for OSA and thereby reduce the potential complications of untreated OSA.

“Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide and sulthiame have been studied with limited success for the treatment of other forms of sleep disordered breathing such as central sleep apnea [CSA] but have shown less efficacy for OSA and are presently not recommended in the treatment of OSA by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,” Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said.

Recently, emerging evidence about different phenotypes of OSA suggests that nonanatomic features (such as high loop gain) may play a role in patients with OSA, not only in those with CSA, she said. Whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors could play a greater role in treating sleep apnea in patients with predominantly nonanatomic pathophysiologic traits remains to be seen.

The sulthiame data are promising, but more research is needed, Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said. Although patients in the highest dose group showed a reduction in AHI of nearly 40%, they still would have moderate OSA, and the OSA did not appear to decrease to a normal range in any of the treatment groups.

“More research is needed to identify which types of patients would be responders to this form of therapy, to understand if these effects are maintained long term (beyond 15 weeks), to evaluate patient-centered outcomes, especially in different sleep apnea subgroups (such as phenotypes with high loop gain vs those without), and to assess interactions with other therapies,” she said.

The study was supported by manufacturer Desitin. Dr. Hedner disclosed serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, CereusScience, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Weinmann, Desitin, SomnoMed, and Itamar Medical; serving on the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Weinmann; and receiving grants or research support from Bayer, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and SomnoMed. He also disclosed shared ownership of intellectual property related to sleep apnea therapy. Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An epilepsy drug sold in Europe as Ospolot and also known as sulthiame showed promise in reducing sleep disordered breathing and other symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), based on data from nearly 300 individuals presented in a late-breaking study at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Current therapies are mechanical and based on the notion of an airway splint,” presenting author Jan Hedner, MD, professor of respiratory medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, both in Sweden, said in an interview. “In other words, applying an airflow at elevated pressure [continuous positive airway pressure] or advancing the jaw with a dental device. Adherence to this type of therapy is limited. In the case of continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], it is < 50% after 3-4 years of therapy.” Therefore, there is a need for a better-tolerated therapy, such as a drug, and possibly a combination of mechanical and pharmaceutical therapies.

The use of medication has emerged as a viable option for OSA, with a high rate of compliance and acceptable safety profile, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

“Modified carbonic anhydrase activity may be a pathophysiological mechanism in OSA,” said Dr. Hedner. Sulthiame, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, showed safety and effectiveness for improving OSA in a previous phase 2b trial.

In the current study, the researchers sought to determine the most effective dose of sulthiame for patients with OSA. They randomized 298 adults with OSA who could not accept or tolerate oral splints or CPAP to 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg of sulthiame daily (74, 74, and 75 patients, respectively) or placebo (75 patients).

The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 26.2% were women, and the average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI3a) at baseline was 29 n/h. Patients were treated at centers in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar among the treatment groups.

The primary endpoint was the change in AHI3a from baseline to 15 weeks, and significant changes occurred in patients who received the 100-mg, 200-mg, and 300-mg doses, with decreases of 17.8%, 34.8%, and 39.9%, respectively.

Peak efficacy occurred in the range of 200-300 mg and was similar for patients with moderate or severe OSA, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

Notably, in a post hoc analysis, apnea improved by 47.1% at a 300-mg dose when the AHI4 measure (apnea/hypopnea with ≥ 4% O₂ desaturation) was used in a placebo-adjusted dose-dependent reduction, the researchers wrote. The changes in AHI4 from baseline in this analysis also were significant for 200 mg and 100 mg doses (36.8% and 26.2%, respectively).

Patients underwent polysomnography at baseline and at weeks 4 and 12.

Mean overnight oxygen saturation also improved significantly from baseline with doses of 200 mg and 300 mg, compared with placebo (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) improved from baseline to week 15 in all dosage groups, and the subgroup of patients with ESS scores of ≥ 11 at baseline showed even greater improvement in ESS, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

Total arousal index and sleep quality also improved from baseline compared with placebo, and no clinically relevant reduction in REM sleep was noted, Dr. Hedner added.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with the known safety profile of sulthiame and included paresthesia, headache, fatigue, and nausea; these were mainly moderate and dose-dependent, with no evidence of cardiovascular safety issues, he said.

Although the study results were not surprising given previous research, the investigators were pleased with the potency of the therapy. “We are also happy about potential added values such as a blood pressure lowering effect, which is beneficial in this group of patients; however, we need to further study these mechanisms in detail,” Dr. Hedner noted.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small scale, and larger studies on long-term efficacy and tolerability are also needed, he said.

“The current study was a dose-finding study, and we now have useful information on most suitable dose,” he said.

However, the results support sulthiame as an effective, well-tolerated, and promising novel candidate for drug therapy in patients with OSA, worthy of phase 3 studies, Dr. Hedner said.
 

Oral Option Could Be Game-Changer, But Not Yet

The gold standard of treatment for OSA is a CPAP machine, but the effectiveness is limited by patient tolerance, Q. Afifa Shamim-Uzzaman, MD, an associate professor and a sleep medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“Presently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for OSA — having a pill that treats OSA would be a total game changer and huge advance for the treatment of OSA and the field of sleep medicine,” said Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman, who was not involved in the study. “More patients may be able to obtain treatment for OSA and thereby reduce the potential complications of untreated OSA.

“Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide and sulthiame have been studied with limited success for the treatment of other forms of sleep disordered breathing such as central sleep apnea [CSA] but have shown less efficacy for OSA and are presently not recommended in the treatment of OSA by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,” Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said.

Recently, emerging evidence about different phenotypes of OSA suggests that nonanatomic features (such as high loop gain) may play a role in patients with OSA, not only in those with CSA, she said. Whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors could play a greater role in treating sleep apnea in patients with predominantly nonanatomic pathophysiologic traits remains to be seen.

The sulthiame data are promising, but more research is needed, Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said. Although patients in the highest dose group showed a reduction in AHI of nearly 40%, they still would have moderate OSA, and the OSA did not appear to decrease to a normal range in any of the treatment groups.

“More research is needed to identify which types of patients would be responders to this form of therapy, to understand if these effects are maintained long term (beyond 15 weeks), to evaluate patient-centered outcomes, especially in different sleep apnea subgroups (such as phenotypes with high loop gain vs those without), and to assess interactions with other therapies,” she said.

The study was supported by manufacturer Desitin. Dr. Hedner disclosed serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, CereusScience, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Weinmann, Desitin, SomnoMed, and Itamar Medical; serving on the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Weinmann; and receiving grants or research support from Bayer, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and SomnoMed. He also disclosed shared ownership of intellectual property related to sleep apnea therapy. Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An epilepsy drug sold in Europe as Ospolot and also known as sulthiame showed promise in reducing sleep disordered breathing and other symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), based on data from nearly 300 individuals presented in a late-breaking study at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Current therapies are mechanical and based on the notion of an airway splint,” presenting author Jan Hedner, MD, professor of respiratory medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, both in Sweden, said in an interview. “In other words, applying an airflow at elevated pressure [continuous positive airway pressure] or advancing the jaw with a dental device. Adherence to this type of therapy is limited. In the case of continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], it is < 50% after 3-4 years of therapy.” Therefore, there is a need for a better-tolerated therapy, such as a drug, and possibly a combination of mechanical and pharmaceutical therapies.

The use of medication has emerged as a viable option for OSA, with a high rate of compliance and acceptable safety profile, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

“Modified carbonic anhydrase activity may be a pathophysiological mechanism in OSA,” said Dr. Hedner. Sulthiame, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, showed safety and effectiveness for improving OSA in a previous phase 2b trial.

In the current study, the researchers sought to determine the most effective dose of sulthiame for patients with OSA. They randomized 298 adults with OSA who could not accept or tolerate oral splints or CPAP to 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg of sulthiame daily (74, 74, and 75 patients, respectively) or placebo (75 patients).

The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 26.2% were women, and the average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI3a) at baseline was 29 n/h. Patients were treated at centers in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar among the treatment groups.

The primary endpoint was the change in AHI3a from baseline to 15 weeks, and significant changes occurred in patients who received the 100-mg, 200-mg, and 300-mg doses, with decreases of 17.8%, 34.8%, and 39.9%, respectively.

Peak efficacy occurred in the range of 200-300 mg and was similar for patients with moderate or severe OSA, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

Notably, in a post hoc analysis, apnea improved by 47.1% at a 300-mg dose when the AHI4 measure (apnea/hypopnea with ≥ 4% O₂ desaturation) was used in a placebo-adjusted dose-dependent reduction, the researchers wrote. The changes in AHI4 from baseline in this analysis also were significant for 200 mg and 100 mg doses (36.8% and 26.2%, respectively).

Patients underwent polysomnography at baseline and at weeks 4 and 12.

Mean overnight oxygen saturation also improved significantly from baseline with doses of 200 mg and 300 mg, compared with placebo (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) improved from baseline to week 15 in all dosage groups, and the subgroup of patients with ESS scores of ≥ 11 at baseline showed even greater improvement in ESS, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.

Total arousal index and sleep quality also improved from baseline compared with placebo, and no clinically relevant reduction in REM sleep was noted, Dr. Hedner added.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with the known safety profile of sulthiame and included paresthesia, headache, fatigue, and nausea; these were mainly moderate and dose-dependent, with no evidence of cardiovascular safety issues, he said.

Although the study results were not surprising given previous research, the investigators were pleased with the potency of the therapy. “We are also happy about potential added values such as a blood pressure lowering effect, which is beneficial in this group of patients; however, we need to further study these mechanisms in detail,” Dr. Hedner noted.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small scale, and larger studies on long-term efficacy and tolerability are also needed, he said.

“The current study was a dose-finding study, and we now have useful information on most suitable dose,” he said.

However, the results support sulthiame as an effective, well-tolerated, and promising novel candidate for drug therapy in patients with OSA, worthy of phase 3 studies, Dr. Hedner said.
 

Oral Option Could Be Game-Changer, But Not Yet

The gold standard of treatment for OSA is a CPAP machine, but the effectiveness is limited by patient tolerance, Q. Afifa Shamim-Uzzaman, MD, an associate professor and a sleep medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“Presently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for OSA — having a pill that treats OSA would be a total game changer and huge advance for the treatment of OSA and the field of sleep medicine,” said Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman, who was not involved in the study. “More patients may be able to obtain treatment for OSA and thereby reduce the potential complications of untreated OSA.

“Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide and sulthiame have been studied with limited success for the treatment of other forms of sleep disordered breathing such as central sleep apnea [CSA] but have shown less efficacy for OSA and are presently not recommended in the treatment of OSA by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,” Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said.

Recently, emerging evidence about different phenotypes of OSA suggests that nonanatomic features (such as high loop gain) may play a role in patients with OSA, not only in those with CSA, she said. Whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors could play a greater role in treating sleep apnea in patients with predominantly nonanatomic pathophysiologic traits remains to be seen.

The sulthiame data are promising, but more research is needed, Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said. Although patients in the highest dose group showed a reduction in AHI of nearly 40%, they still would have moderate OSA, and the OSA did not appear to decrease to a normal range in any of the treatment groups.

“More research is needed to identify which types of patients would be responders to this form of therapy, to understand if these effects are maintained long term (beyond 15 weeks), to evaluate patient-centered outcomes, especially in different sleep apnea subgroups (such as phenotypes with high loop gain vs those without), and to assess interactions with other therapies,” she said.

The study was supported by manufacturer Desitin. Dr. Hedner disclosed serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, CereusScience, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Weinmann, Desitin, SomnoMed, and Itamar Medical; serving on the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Weinmann; and receiving grants or research support from Bayer, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and SomnoMed. He also disclosed shared ownership of intellectual property related to sleep apnea therapy. Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.

“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). Dr. Sidbury, chief of the Division of Dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, highlighted two agents for AD: Lebrikizumab and nemolizumab. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-13 and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)

In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.

“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.

In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.

Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)

In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.

“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). Dr. Sidbury, chief of the Division of Dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, highlighted two agents for AD: Lebrikizumab and nemolizumab. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-13 and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)

In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.

“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.

In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.

Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)

In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.

“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). Dr. Sidbury, chief of the Division of Dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, highlighted two agents for AD: Lebrikizumab and nemolizumab. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-13 and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)

In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.

“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.

In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.

Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)

In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN — In two phase 3 head-to-head comparing the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) tolebrutinib to the immunomodulatory teriflunomide for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), there was no advantage on the primary endpoint of relapse, but the greater protection against disability, a secondary endpoint, might change thinking about BTKis as a potential MS therapy.

For annualized relapse rate (ARR), which is the basis on which these two drugs were compared, “there was no difference between tolebrutinib and teriflunomide,” reported Jiwon Oh, MD, Medical Director, Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada.

In the similar GEMINI 1 and 2 trials, the ARRs were nearly identical in the first, (0.13 and 0.12), and completely identical in the second (0.11) for tolebrutinib and teriflunomide, respectively.
 

Although Negative, GEMINI Trials Offer Intriguing Data

These data rule out the study hypothesis that a BTKi offers greater protection against relapse than a commonly used immunomodulator, but Dr. Oh suggested the study is still potentially relevant to MS research. Although data on the primary endpoint were disappointing, Dr. Oh suggested that the secondary outcomes support an anti-MS mechanism for the BTKi that is different from that of teriflunomide.

“There is hope,” Dr. Oh said, when reporting the findings of the GEMINI I and II trials during the latebreaker session at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting. Ultimately, a substantial part of this hope was derived from the consistency of the GEMINI data with the placebo-controlled HERCULES trial of tolebrutinib presented immediately afterwards, but the disparity between the primary and secondary outcomes of GEMINI are, by themselves, relevant, suggesting that targets of treatment change as MS progresses from an acute to a chronic inflammatory process.
 

BTKi Associated With Reduced Disability

At 3 months, the rate of confirmed disability worsening (CDW) in the pooled GEMINI trials was 18.5% and 14.7% for tolebrutinib and teriflunomide, respectively, producing at 27% reduction in hazard ratio (HR) for this outcome (HR 0.73; P = .0018). At 6 months, the protection against disability (13.2% vs. 9.9%) persisted for tolebrutinib relative to teriflunomide (HR 0.71; P = .023).*

For the outcome of a confirmed disability improvement at 6 months, the higher rate in the tolebrutinib arm did not reach statistical significance (12.8% vs. 12.0%), but it did suggest a favorable trend (HR 1.22; P = .17).

While Dr. Oh acknowledged that secondary outcomes can only be considered hypothesis generating when the primary outcome is negative, she said these outcomes provide intriguing support for the potential of this BTKi drug to inhibit “smoldering inflammation.” Even if tolebrutinib was no more effective than teriflunomide against the acute inflammation that drives relapse, the GEMINI trials data support greater inhibition of the chronic inflammation implicated in progression in the absence of flares.

On MRI, the annualized rate of new and enlarging T2 lesions, although numerically higher in the tolebrutinib group, did not differ significantly in either GEMINI 1 (5.6 vs. 5.2; P = .46) or GEMINI 2 (5.1 vs. 4.4; P = .24). The least mean square difference in brain volume at end of study relative to 6 months into the study was 0.2% less in the tolebrutinib arm than the teriflunomide arm (P = .0002) in GEMINI 1, but the 0.04 numerical advantage for tolebrutinib did not reach statistical significance in GEMINI 2 (P = .43).

Of the 974 patients randomized in GEMINI 1 and 899 randomized in GEMINI 2, about 85% completed the 3-year trial. Almost all had RRMS (99%) rather than progressing MS. The median age was approximately 36 years, the baseline EDSS score was approximately 1.2, and the median time since diagnosis was about 6.5 years. The mean number of relapses in the prior year was approximately 0.6.

In GEMINI, the secondary outcomes foreshadowed the positive findings in the phase 3 HERCULES trial that came immediately after Dr. Oh’s GEMINI trials presentation. The HERCULES trial associated tolebrutinib with a 31% reduction in the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDW) relative to placebo in patients with non-relapsing secondary progressive MS (nrSPMS).

In HERCULES, 1172 patients with nrSPMS were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to tolebrutinib or placebo. For the primary endpoint of CDW at 6 months, tolebrutinib demonstrated a major and highly significant reduction in this primary endpoint (HR 0.69; P = .00026).
 

BTKi Disability Protection Supported By Progressive MS Trial

“This is the first trial to show significant slowing of disability in people with nrSPMS,” reported the principal investigator Robert J. Fox, MD, Vice Chair of the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

For disability improvement at 6 months, tolebrutinib was associated with a nearly 2-fold improvement (HR 1.88; P = .021). According to both Dr. Oh and Dr. Fox the results of these two major phase 3 tolebrutinib studies support the principle that the BTKi, which was shown to offer inhibition of relapse comparable to teriflunomide in the GEMINI trials, offers a greater inhibition of chronic inflammation.

“These results are consistent with the hypothesis that acute focal inflammation and smoldering neuroinflammation are two distinct biological processes,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Fox said that the HERCULES results will be submitted to regulatory authorities with the goal of securing an indication for tolebrutinib for nrSPMS.

Both Dr. Oh and Dr. Fox suggested these results are likely to reorient thinking about the pathophysiology of MS progression and how different processes can be targeted in the future. Other experts agreed.

“I think we are starting to look at different endpoints than ARR, particularly at those that might better reflect progression in later stages of MS and that are independent of ARR,” said Dalia Rotstein, MD, MS researcher and an assistant professor of neurology, University of Toronto, Canada.

A moderator of the ECTRIMS latebreaker session, she suggested that the differences between outcomes of the GEMINI trials and HERCULES trials might have relevance to each other even if the GEMINI trials did not meet their primary endpoint.

Dr. Oh reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, which provided funding for the GEMINI trials. Dr. Fox reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi, which also provided funding for the HERCULES trial. Dr. Rotstein reported financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Horizon, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Touch IME.

*Correction, 9/26/24: A previous version of this article contained an incorrect P value.

COPENHAGEN — In two phase 3 head-to-head comparing the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) tolebrutinib to the immunomodulatory teriflunomide for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), there was no advantage on the primary endpoint of relapse, but the greater protection against disability, a secondary endpoint, might change thinking about BTKis as a potential MS therapy.

For annualized relapse rate (ARR), which is the basis on which these two drugs were compared, “there was no difference between tolebrutinib and teriflunomide,” reported Jiwon Oh, MD, Medical Director, Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada.

In the similar GEMINI 1 and 2 trials, the ARRs were nearly identical in the first, (0.13 and 0.12), and completely identical in the second (0.11) for tolebrutinib and teriflunomide, respectively.
 

Although Negative, GEMINI Trials Offer Intriguing Data

These data rule out the study hypothesis that a BTKi offers greater protection against relapse than a commonly used immunomodulator, but Dr. Oh suggested the study is still potentially relevant to MS research. Although data on the primary endpoint were disappointing, Dr. Oh suggested that the secondary outcomes support an anti-MS mechanism for the BTKi that is different from that of teriflunomide.

“There is hope,” Dr. Oh said, when reporting the findings of the GEMINI I and II trials during the latebreaker session at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting. Ultimately, a substantial part of this hope was derived from the consistency of the GEMINI data with the placebo-controlled HERCULES trial of tolebrutinib presented immediately afterwards, but the disparity between the primary and secondary outcomes of GEMINI are, by themselves, relevant, suggesting that targets of treatment change as MS progresses from an acute to a chronic inflammatory process.
 

BTKi Associated With Reduced Disability

At 3 months, the rate of confirmed disability worsening (CDW) in the pooled GEMINI trials was 18.5% and 14.7% for tolebrutinib and teriflunomide, respectively, producing at 27% reduction in hazard ratio (HR) for this outcome (HR 0.73; P = .0018). At 6 months, the protection against disability (13.2% vs. 9.9%) persisted for tolebrutinib relative to teriflunomide (HR 0.71; P = .023).*

For the outcome of a confirmed disability improvement at 6 months, the higher rate in the tolebrutinib arm did not reach statistical significance (12.8% vs. 12.0%), but it did suggest a favorable trend (HR 1.22; P = .17).

While Dr. Oh acknowledged that secondary outcomes can only be considered hypothesis generating when the primary outcome is negative, she said these outcomes provide intriguing support for the potential of this BTKi drug to inhibit “smoldering inflammation.” Even if tolebrutinib was no more effective than teriflunomide against the acute inflammation that drives relapse, the GEMINI trials data support greater inhibition of the chronic inflammation implicated in progression in the absence of flares.

On MRI, the annualized rate of new and enlarging T2 lesions, although numerically higher in the tolebrutinib group, did not differ significantly in either GEMINI 1 (5.6 vs. 5.2; P = .46) or GEMINI 2 (5.1 vs. 4.4; P = .24). The least mean square difference in brain volume at end of study relative to 6 months into the study was 0.2% less in the tolebrutinib arm than the teriflunomide arm (P = .0002) in GEMINI 1, but the 0.04 numerical advantage for tolebrutinib did not reach statistical significance in GEMINI 2 (P = .43).

Of the 974 patients randomized in GEMINI 1 and 899 randomized in GEMINI 2, about 85% completed the 3-year trial. Almost all had RRMS (99%) rather than progressing MS. The median age was approximately 36 years, the baseline EDSS score was approximately 1.2, and the median time since diagnosis was about 6.5 years. The mean number of relapses in the prior year was approximately 0.6.

In GEMINI, the secondary outcomes foreshadowed the positive findings in the phase 3 HERCULES trial that came immediately after Dr. Oh’s GEMINI trials presentation. The HERCULES trial associated tolebrutinib with a 31% reduction in the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDW) relative to placebo in patients with non-relapsing secondary progressive MS (nrSPMS).

In HERCULES, 1172 patients with nrSPMS were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to tolebrutinib or placebo. For the primary endpoint of CDW at 6 months, tolebrutinib demonstrated a major and highly significant reduction in this primary endpoint (HR 0.69; P = .00026).
 

BTKi Disability Protection Supported By Progressive MS Trial

“This is the first trial to show significant slowing of disability in people with nrSPMS,” reported the principal investigator Robert J. Fox, MD, Vice Chair of the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

For disability improvement at 6 months, tolebrutinib was associated with a nearly 2-fold improvement (HR 1.88; P = .021). According to both Dr. Oh and Dr. Fox the results of these two major phase 3 tolebrutinib studies support the principle that the BTKi, which was shown to offer inhibition of relapse comparable to teriflunomide in the GEMINI trials, offers a greater inhibition of chronic inflammation.

“These results are consistent with the hypothesis that acute focal inflammation and smoldering neuroinflammation are two distinct biological processes,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Fox said that the HERCULES results will be submitted to regulatory authorities with the goal of securing an indication for tolebrutinib for nrSPMS.

Both Dr. Oh and Dr. Fox suggested these results are likely to reorient thinking about the pathophysiology of MS progression and how different processes can be targeted in the future. Other experts agreed.

“I think we are starting to look at different endpoints than ARR, particularly at those that might better reflect progression in later stages of MS and that are independent of ARR,” said Dalia Rotstein, MD, MS researcher and an assistant professor of neurology, University of Toronto, Canada.

A moderator of the ECTRIMS latebreaker session, she suggested that the differences between outcomes of the GEMINI trials and HERCULES trials might have relevance to each other even if the GEMINI trials did not meet their primary endpoint.

Dr. Oh reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, which provided funding for the GEMINI trials. Dr. Fox reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi, which also provided funding for the HERCULES trial. Dr. Rotstein reported financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Horizon, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Touch IME.

*Correction, 9/26/24: A previous version of this article contained an incorrect P value.

COPENHAGEN — In two phase 3 head-to-head comparing the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) tolebrutinib to the immunomodulatory teriflunomide for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), there was no advantage on the primary endpoint of relapse, but the greater protection against disability, a secondary endpoint, might change thinking about BTKis as a potential MS therapy.

For annualized relapse rate (ARR), which is the basis on which these two drugs were compared, “there was no difference between tolebrutinib and teriflunomide,” reported Jiwon Oh, MD, Medical Director, Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada.

In the similar GEMINI 1 and 2 trials, the ARRs were nearly identical in the first, (0.13 and 0.12), and completely identical in the second (0.11) for tolebrutinib and teriflunomide, respectively.
 

Although Negative, GEMINI Trials Offer Intriguing Data

These data rule out the study hypothesis that a BTKi offers greater protection against relapse than a commonly used immunomodulator, but Dr. Oh suggested the study is still potentially relevant to MS research. Although data on the primary endpoint were disappointing, Dr. Oh suggested that the secondary outcomes support an anti-MS mechanism for the BTKi that is different from that of teriflunomide.

“There is hope,” Dr. Oh said, when reporting the findings of the GEMINI I and II trials during the latebreaker session at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting. Ultimately, a substantial part of this hope was derived from the consistency of the GEMINI data with the placebo-controlled HERCULES trial of tolebrutinib presented immediately afterwards, but the disparity between the primary and secondary outcomes of GEMINI are, by themselves, relevant, suggesting that targets of treatment change as MS progresses from an acute to a chronic inflammatory process.
 

BTKi Associated With Reduced Disability

At 3 months, the rate of confirmed disability worsening (CDW) in the pooled GEMINI trials was 18.5% and 14.7% for tolebrutinib and teriflunomide, respectively, producing at 27% reduction in hazard ratio (HR) for this outcome (HR 0.73; P = .0018). At 6 months, the protection against disability (13.2% vs. 9.9%) persisted for tolebrutinib relative to teriflunomide (HR 0.71; P = .023).*

For the outcome of a confirmed disability improvement at 6 months, the higher rate in the tolebrutinib arm did not reach statistical significance (12.8% vs. 12.0%), but it did suggest a favorable trend (HR 1.22; P = .17).

While Dr. Oh acknowledged that secondary outcomes can only be considered hypothesis generating when the primary outcome is negative, she said these outcomes provide intriguing support for the potential of this BTKi drug to inhibit “smoldering inflammation.” Even if tolebrutinib was no more effective than teriflunomide against the acute inflammation that drives relapse, the GEMINI trials data support greater inhibition of the chronic inflammation implicated in progression in the absence of flares.

On MRI, the annualized rate of new and enlarging T2 lesions, although numerically higher in the tolebrutinib group, did not differ significantly in either GEMINI 1 (5.6 vs. 5.2; P = .46) or GEMINI 2 (5.1 vs. 4.4; P = .24). The least mean square difference in brain volume at end of study relative to 6 months into the study was 0.2% less in the tolebrutinib arm than the teriflunomide arm (P = .0002) in GEMINI 1, but the 0.04 numerical advantage for tolebrutinib did not reach statistical significance in GEMINI 2 (P = .43).

Of the 974 patients randomized in GEMINI 1 and 899 randomized in GEMINI 2, about 85% completed the 3-year trial. Almost all had RRMS (99%) rather than progressing MS. The median age was approximately 36 years, the baseline EDSS score was approximately 1.2, and the median time since diagnosis was about 6.5 years. The mean number of relapses in the prior year was approximately 0.6.

In GEMINI, the secondary outcomes foreshadowed the positive findings in the phase 3 HERCULES trial that came immediately after Dr. Oh’s GEMINI trials presentation. The HERCULES trial associated tolebrutinib with a 31% reduction in the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDW) relative to placebo in patients with non-relapsing secondary progressive MS (nrSPMS).

In HERCULES, 1172 patients with nrSPMS were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to tolebrutinib or placebo. For the primary endpoint of CDW at 6 months, tolebrutinib demonstrated a major and highly significant reduction in this primary endpoint (HR 0.69; P = .00026).
 

BTKi Disability Protection Supported By Progressive MS Trial

“This is the first trial to show significant slowing of disability in people with nrSPMS,” reported the principal investigator Robert J. Fox, MD, Vice Chair of the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

For disability improvement at 6 months, tolebrutinib was associated with a nearly 2-fold improvement (HR 1.88; P = .021). According to both Dr. Oh and Dr. Fox the results of these two major phase 3 tolebrutinib studies support the principle that the BTKi, which was shown to offer inhibition of relapse comparable to teriflunomide in the GEMINI trials, offers a greater inhibition of chronic inflammation.

“These results are consistent with the hypothesis that acute focal inflammation and smoldering neuroinflammation are two distinct biological processes,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Fox said that the HERCULES results will be submitted to regulatory authorities with the goal of securing an indication for tolebrutinib for nrSPMS.

Both Dr. Oh and Dr. Fox suggested these results are likely to reorient thinking about the pathophysiology of MS progression and how different processes can be targeted in the future. Other experts agreed.

“I think we are starting to look at different endpoints than ARR, particularly at those that might better reflect progression in later stages of MS and that are independent of ARR,” said Dalia Rotstein, MD, MS researcher and an assistant professor of neurology, University of Toronto, Canada.

A moderator of the ECTRIMS latebreaker session, she suggested that the differences between outcomes of the GEMINI trials and HERCULES trials might have relevance to each other even if the GEMINI trials did not meet their primary endpoint.

Dr. Oh reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, which provided funding for the GEMINI trials. Dr. Fox reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi, which also provided funding for the HERCULES trial. Dr. Rotstein reported financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Horizon, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Touch IME.

*Correction, 9/26/24: A previous version of this article contained an incorrect P value.