User login
Another study ties statins to T2D: Should practice change?
Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”
Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.
For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”
They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”
An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”
In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin
The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.
Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.
Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).
Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).
“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”
“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”
Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”
The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”
“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”
Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”
“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.
“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”
“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”
“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.”
So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.
One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.
Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.
With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:
- For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
- For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
- For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.
It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.
Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”
Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.
For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”
They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”
An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”
In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin
The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.
Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.
Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).
Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).
“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”
“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”
Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”
The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”
“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”
Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”
“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.
“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”
“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”
“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.”
So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.
One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.
Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.
With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:
- For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
- For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
- For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.
It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.
Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”
Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.
For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”
They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”
An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”
In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin
The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.
Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.
Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).
Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).
“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”
“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”
Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”
The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”
“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”
Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”
“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.
“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”
“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”
“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.”
So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.
One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.
Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.
With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:
- For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
- For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
- For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.
It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.
Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Antidepressants ‘don’t blunt’ semaglutide and weight loss
in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.
Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.
“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”
“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”
“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”
Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”
“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”
Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.
Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.
Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants
Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.
However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.
The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.
Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, or ≥27 kg/m2 with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m2 with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.
They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.
From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:
- STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
- STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
- STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
- STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%.
The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:
- STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
- STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
- STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
- STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.
Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.
The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.
Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.
“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”
“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”
“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”
Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”
“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”
Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.
Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.
Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants
Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.
However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.
The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.
Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, or ≥27 kg/m2 with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m2 with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.
They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.
From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:
- STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
- STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
- STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
- STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%.
The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:
- STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
- STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
- STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
- STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.
Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.
The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.
Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.
“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”
“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”
“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”
Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”
“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”
Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.
Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.
Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants
Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.
However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.
The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.
Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, or ≥27 kg/m2 with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m2 with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.
They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.
From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:
- STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
- STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
- STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
- STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%.
The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:
- STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
- STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
- STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
- STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.
Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.
The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM OBESITYWEEK® 2023
Endoscopic remission doubled with risankizumab vs. ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease
AT UEG WEEK 2023
COPENHAGEN – (CD) who have failed one or more anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, according to the results of the phase 3 SEQUENCE trial.
Secondary endpoints – presented for the first time at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2023 – also showed superiority of risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie), an interleulin-23 inhibitor, over ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, for clinical remission at week 48 (60.8% vs. 40.8%) and a statistically significant endoscopic response also favoring risankizumab at weeks 24 and 48.
“With endoscopic remission we see that with a single agent we have doubled the endoscopic remission rate by moving from 16% to 31% with risankizumab [at week 48],” said Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease at Nancy University Hospital, France. “Superiority for sure was met.”
“This sort of thing happens once in your career,” noted Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who presented the results of the study at the meeting. “It’s totally amazing that everything you see here was in favor of risankizumab.
“Already we see the efficacy signal in the proportion of premature discontinuations at 2% vs. 13% due to lack of efficacy [in risankizumab and ustekinumab, respectively],” he said. “This is due to drug failure.”
Risankizumab is an IL-23 inhibitor that selectively blocks the cytokine IL-23, thought to be linked to a number of chronic immune-mediated diseases, by binding to its p19 subunit. It is the first IL-23 inhibitor to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 for moderately to severely active CD based on data from the ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY trials.
Risankizumab and ustekinumab head-to-head
The phase 3, open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial evaluated risankizumab vs. ustekinumab through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active CD.
Participants were required to have a CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 at baseline, a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of 6 or more for ileocolonic or colonic disease (and of 4 or more for isolated ileal disease), excluding the presence of a narrowing component, plus an average daily stool frequency of four or more and/or average daily abdominal pain score of 2 or more. They were also required to have previously failed one or more anti-TNF therapies.
Randomization was stratified by the number of anti-TNF therapies failed (one or more than one), and steroid use at baseline; steroids were then tapered from week 2. Two primary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 24 (defined as CDAI < 150, noninferiority margin within 10% of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in 50% of participants), and also endoscopic remission (SES-CD of 4 or less, and at least a 2-point reduction vs. baseline and no subscore greater than 1 in any individual component) at week 48 demonstrating superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab.
Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at week 48, endoscopic response at weeks 48 and 24, steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 (all tested for superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab).
Intravenous risankizumab at 600 mg was given at weeks 0, 4 , and 8 followed by subcutaneous risankizumab at a 360-mg maintenance dose every 8 weeks through week 48 (n = 255). Participants who completed the week-48 visit continued on subcutaneous risankizumab for up to an additional 220 weeks. Ustekinumab was given as a weight-based, intravenous induction dose at week 0 followed by a 90-mg subcutaneous dose every 8 weeks, starting at week 8 through week 48 (n = 265). Participants received open-label drug administration but efficacy assessment was blinded.
Superiority of risankizumab
Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).
Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.
In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.
Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.
“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”
Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.
These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.
No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT UEG WEEK 2023
COPENHAGEN – (CD) who have failed one or more anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, according to the results of the phase 3 SEQUENCE trial.
Secondary endpoints – presented for the first time at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2023 – also showed superiority of risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie), an interleulin-23 inhibitor, over ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, for clinical remission at week 48 (60.8% vs. 40.8%) and a statistically significant endoscopic response also favoring risankizumab at weeks 24 and 48.
“With endoscopic remission we see that with a single agent we have doubled the endoscopic remission rate by moving from 16% to 31% with risankizumab [at week 48],” said Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease at Nancy University Hospital, France. “Superiority for sure was met.”
“This sort of thing happens once in your career,” noted Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who presented the results of the study at the meeting. “It’s totally amazing that everything you see here was in favor of risankizumab.
“Already we see the efficacy signal in the proportion of premature discontinuations at 2% vs. 13% due to lack of efficacy [in risankizumab and ustekinumab, respectively],” he said. “This is due to drug failure.”
Risankizumab is an IL-23 inhibitor that selectively blocks the cytokine IL-23, thought to be linked to a number of chronic immune-mediated diseases, by binding to its p19 subunit. It is the first IL-23 inhibitor to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 for moderately to severely active CD based on data from the ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY trials.
Risankizumab and ustekinumab head-to-head
The phase 3, open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial evaluated risankizumab vs. ustekinumab through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active CD.
Participants were required to have a CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 at baseline, a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of 6 or more for ileocolonic or colonic disease (and of 4 or more for isolated ileal disease), excluding the presence of a narrowing component, plus an average daily stool frequency of four or more and/or average daily abdominal pain score of 2 or more. They were also required to have previously failed one or more anti-TNF therapies.
Randomization was stratified by the number of anti-TNF therapies failed (one or more than one), and steroid use at baseline; steroids were then tapered from week 2. Two primary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 24 (defined as CDAI < 150, noninferiority margin within 10% of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in 50% of participants), and also endoscopic remission (SES-CD of 4 or less, and at least a 2-point reduction vs. baseline and no subscore greater than 1 in any individual component) at week 48 demonstrating superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab.
Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at week 48, endoscopic response at weeks 48 and 24, steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 (all tested for superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab).
Intravenous risankizumab at 600 mg was given at weeks 0, 4 , and 8 followed by subcutaneous risankizumab at a 360-mg maintenance dose every 8 weeks through week 48 (n = 255). Participants who completed the week-48 visit continued on subcutaneous risankizumab for up to an additional 220 weeks. Ustekinumab was given as a weight-based, intravenous induction dose at week 0 followed by a 90-mg subcutaneous dose every 8 weeks, starting at week 8 through week 48 (n = 265). Participants received open-label drug administration but efficacy assessment was blinded.
Superiority of risankizumab
Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).
Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.
In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.
Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.
“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”
Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.
These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.
No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT UEG WEEK 2023
COPENHAGEN – (CD) who have failed one or more anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, according to the results of the phase 3 SEQUENCE trial.
Secondary endpoints – presented for the first time at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2023 – also showed superiority of risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie), an interleulin-23 inhibitor, over ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, for clinical remission at week 48 (60.8% vs. 40.8%) and a statistically significant endoscopic response also favoring risankizumab at weeks 24 and 48.
“With endoscopic remission we see that with a single agent we have doubled the endoscopic remission rate by moving from 16% to 31% with risankizumab [at week 48],” said Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease at Nancy University Hospital, France. “Superiority for sure was met.”
“This sort of thing happens once in your career,” noted Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who presented the results of the study at the meeting. “It’s totally amazing that everything you see here was in favor of risankizumab.
“Already we see the efficacy signal in the proportion of premature discontinuations at 2% vs. 13% due to lack of efficacy [in risankizumab and ustekinumab, respectively],” he said. “This is due to drug failure.”
Risankizumab is an IL-23 inhibitor that selectively blocks the cytokine IL-23, thought to be linked to a number of chronic immune-mediated diseases, by binding to its p19 subunit. It is the first IL-23 inhibitor to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 for moderately to severely active CD based on data from the ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY trials.
Risankizumab and ustekinumab head-to-head
The phase 3, open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial evaluated risankizumab vs. ustekinumab through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active CD.
Participants were required to have a CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 at baseline, a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of 6 or more for ileocolonic or colonic disease (and of 4 or more for isolated ileal disease), excluding the presence of a narrowing component, plus an average daily stool frequency of four or more and/or average daily abdominal pain score of 2 or more. They were also required to have previously failed one or more anti-TNF therapies.
Randomization was stratified by the number of anti-TNF therapies failed (one or more than one), and steroid use at baseline; steroids were then tapered from week 2. Two primary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 24 (defined as CDAI < 150, noninferiority margin within 10% of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in 50% of participants), and also endoscopic remission (SES-CD of 4 or less, and at least a 2-point reduction vs. baseline and no subscore greater than 1 in any individual component) at week 48 demonstrating superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab.
Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at week 48, endoscopic response at weeks 48 and 24, steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 (all tested for superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab).
Intravenous risankizumab at 600 mg was given at weeks 0, 4 , and 8 followed by subcutaneous risankizumab at a 360-mg maintenance dose every 8 weeks through week 48 (n = 255). Participants who completed the week-48 visit continued on subcutaneous risankizumab for up to an additional 220 weeks. Ustekinumab was given as a weight-based, intravenous induction dose at week 0 followed by a 90-mg subcutaneous dose every 8 weeks, starting at week 8 through week 48 (n = 265). Participants received open-label drug administration but efficacy assessment was blinded.
Superiority of risankizumab
Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).
Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.
In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.
Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.
“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”
Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.
These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.
No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking a new obesity drug and birth control pills? Be careful
For women who are obese, daily life is wrought with landmines. Whether it’s the challenges of air travel because plane seats are too small, the need to shield themselves from the world’s discriminating eyes, or the great lengths many will go to achieve better health and the promise of longevity, navigating life as an obese person requires a thick skin.
So, it’s no wonder so many are willing to pay more than $1,000 a month out of pocket to get their hands on drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). The benefits of these drugs, which are part of a new class called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, include significant and rapid weight loss, blood sugar control, and improved life quality; they are unprecedented in a setting where surgery has long been considered the most effective long-term option.
On the flip side, the desire for rapid weight loss and better blood sugar control also comes with an unexpected cost. , making an unintended pregnancy more likely.
Neel Shah, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said he has had several patients become pregnant without intending to.
“It was when Mounjaro came out on the market when we started using it,” he said of the drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for type 2 diabetes in 2022. “It [the warning] was in the product insert, but clinically speaking, I don’t know if it was at the top of providers’ minds when they were prescribing Mounjaro.”
When asked if he believed that we were going to be seeing a significant increase in so-called Mounjaro babies, Dr. Shah was sure in his response.
“Absolutely. We will because the sheer volume [of patients] will increase,” he said.
It’s all in the gut
One of the ways that drugs like Mounjaro work is by delaying the time that it takes for food to move from the stomach to the small intestine. Although data are still evolving, it is believed that this process – delayed gastric emptying – may affect the absorption of birth control pills.
Dr. Shah said another theory is that vomiting, which is a common side effect of these types of drugs, also affects the pills’ ability to prevent pregnancy.
And “there’s a prolonged period of ramping up the dose because of the GI side effects,” said Pinar Kodaman, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist and assistant professor of gynecology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
“Initially, at the lowest dose, there may not be a lot of potential effect on absorption and gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes more common, and it can cause diarrhea, which is another condition that can affect the absorption of any medication,” she said.
Unanticipated outcomes, extra prevention
Roughly 42% of women in the United States are obese, 40% of whom are between the ages of 20 and 39. Although these new drugs can improve fertility outcomes for women who are obese (especially those with polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS), only one – Mounjaro – currently carries a warning about birth control pill effectiveness on its label. Unfortunately, it appears that some doctors are unaware or not counseling patients about this risk, and the data are unclear about whether other drugs in this class, like Ozempic and Wegovy, have the same risks.
“To date, it hasn’t been a typical thing that we counsel about,” said Dr. Kodaman. “It’s all fairly new, but when we have patients on birth control pills, we do review other medications that they are on because some can affect efficacy, and it’s something to keep in mind.”
It’s also unclear if other forms of birth control – for example, birth control patches that deliver through the skin – might carry similar pregnancy risks. Dr. Shah said some of his patients who became pregnant without intending to were using these patches. This raises even more questions, since they deliver drugs through the skin directly into the bloodstream and not through the GI system.
What can women do to help ensure that they don’t become pregnant while using these drugs?
“I really think that if patients want to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy, that as soon as they start the GLP receptor agonists, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use condoms, because the onset of action is pretty quick,” said Dr. Kodaman, noting also that “at the lowest dose there may not be a lot of potential effect on gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes much more common or can cause diarrhea.”
Dr. Shah said that in his practice he’s “been telling patients to add barrier contraception” 4 weeks before they start their first dose “and at any dose adjustment.”
Zoobia Chaudhry, an obesity medicine doctor and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, recommends that “patients just make sure that the injection and medication that they take are at least 1 hour apart.”
“Most of the time, patients do take birth control before bedtime, so if the two are spaced, it should be OK,” she said.
Another option is for women to speak to their doctors about other contraceptive options like IUDs or implantable rods, where gastric absorption is not going to be an issue.
“There’s very little research on this class of drugs,” said Emily Goodstein, a 40-year-old small-business owner in Washington, who recently switched from Ozempic to Mounjaro. “Being a person who lives in a larger body is such a horrifying experience because of the way that the world discriminates against you.”
She appreciates the feeling of being proactive that these new drugs grant. It has “opened up a bunch of opportunities for me to be seen as a full individual by the medical establishment,” she said. “I was willing to take the risk, knowing that I would be on these drugs for the rest of my life.”
In addition to being what Dr. Goodstein refers to as a guinea pig, she said she made sure that her primary care doctor was aware that she was not trying or planning to become pregnant again. (She has a 3-year-old child.) Still, her doctor mentioned only the most common side effects linked to these drugs, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and did not mention the risk of pregnancy.
“Folks are really not talking about the reproductive implications,” she said, referring to members of a Facebook group on these drugs that she belongs to.
Like patients themselves, many doctors are just beginning to get their arms around these agents. “Awareness, education, provider involvement, and having a multidisciplinary team could help patients achieve the goals that they set out for themselves,” said Dr. Shah.
Clear conversations are key.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For women who are obese, daily life is wrought with landmines. Whether it’s the challenges of air travel because plane seats are too small, the need to shield themselves from the world’s discriminating eyes, or the great lengths many will go to achieve better health and the promise of longevity, navigating life as an obese person requires a thick skin.
So, it’s no wonder so many are willing to pay more than $1,000 a month out of pocket to get their hands on drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). The benefits of these drugs, which are part of a new class called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, include significant and rapid weight loss, blood sugar control, and improved life quality; they are unprecedented in a setting where surgery has long been considered the most effective long-term option.
On the flip side, the desire for rapid weight loss and better blood sugar control also comes with an unexpected cost. , making an unintended pregnancy more likely.
Neel Shah, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said he has had several patients become pregnant without intending to.
“It was when Mounjaro came out on the market when we started using it,” he said of the drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for type 2 diabetes in 2022. “It [the warning] was in the product insert, but clinically speaking, I don’t know if it was at the top of providers’ minds when they were prescribing Mounjaro.”
When asked if he believed that we were going to be seeing a significant increase in so-called Mounjaro babies, Dr. Shah was sure in his response.
“Absolutely. We will because the sheer volume [of patients] will increase,” he said.
It’s all in the gut
One of the ways that drugs like Mounjaro work is by delaying the time that it takes for food to move from the stomach to the small intestine. Although data are still evolving, it is believed that this process – delayed gastric emptying – may affect the absorption of birth control pills.
Dr. Shah said another theory is that vomiting, which is a common side effect of these types of drugs, also affects the pills’ ability to prevent pregnancy.
And “there’s a prolonged period of ramping up the dose because of the GI side effects,” said Pinar Kodaman, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist and assistant professor of gynecology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
“Initially, at the lowest dose, there may not be a lot of potential effect on absorption and gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes more common, and it can cause diarrhea, which is another condition that can affect the absorption of any medication,” she said.
Unanticipated outcomes, extra prevention
Roughly 42% of women in the United States are obese, 40% of whom are between the ages of 20 and 39. Although these new drugs can improve fertility outcomes for women who are obese (especially those with polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS), only one – Mounjaro – currently carries a warning about birth control pill effectiveness on its label. Unfortunately, it appears that some doctors are unaware or not counseling patients about this risk, and the data are unclear about whether other drugs in this class, like Ozempic and Wegovy, have the same risks.
“To date, it hasn’t been a typical thing that we counsel about,” said Dr. Kodaman. “It’s all fairly new, but when we have patients on birth control pills, we do review other medications that they are on because some can affect efficacy, and it’s something to keep in mind.”
It’s also unclear if other forms of birth control – for example, birth control patches that deliver through the skin – might carry similar pregnancy risks. Dr. Shah said some of his patients who became pregnant without intending to were using these patches. This raises even more questions, since they deliver drugs through the skin directly into the bloodstream and not through the GI system.
What can women do to help ensure that they don’t become pregnant while using these drugs?
“I really think that if patients want to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy, that as soon as they start the GLP receptor agonists, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use condoms, because the onset of action is pretty quick,” said Dr. Kodaman, noting also that “at the lowest dose there may not be a lot of potential effect on gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes much more common or can cause diarrhea.”
Dr. Shah said that in his practice he’s “been telling patients to add barrier contraception” 4 weeks before they start their first dose “and at any dose adjustment.”
Zoobia Chaudhry, an obesity medicine doctor and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, recommends that “patients just make sure that the injection and medication that they take are at least 1 hour apart.”
“Most of the time, patients do take birth control before bedtime, so if the two are spaced, it should be OK,” she said.
Another option is for women to speak to their doctors about other contraceptive options like IUDs or implantable rods, where gastric absorption is not going to be an issue.
“There’s very little research on this class of drugs,” said Emily Goodstein, a 40-year-old small-business owner in Washington, who recently switched from Ozempic to Mounjaro. “Being a person who lives in a larger body is such a horrifying experience because of the way that the world discriminates against you.”
She appreciates the feeling of being proactive that these new drugs grant. It has “opened up a bunch of opportunities for me to be seen as a full individual by the medical establishment,” she said. “I was willing to take the risk, knowing that I would be on these drugs for the rest of my life.”
In addition to being what Dr. Goodstein refers to as a guinea pig, she said she made sure that her primary care doctor was aware that she was not trying or planning to become pregnant again. (She has a 3-year-old child.) Still, her doctor mentioned only the most common side effects linked to these drugs, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and did not mention the risk of pregnancy.
“Folks are really not talking about the reproductive implications,” she said, referring to members of a Facebook group on these drugs that she belongs to.
Like patients themselves, many doctors are just beginning to get their arms around these agents. “Awareness, education, provider involvement, and having a multidisciplinary team could help patients achieve the goals that they set out for themselves,” said Dr. Shah.
Clear conversations are key.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For women who are obese, daily life is wrought with landmines. Whether it’s the challenges of air travel because plane seats are too small, the need to shield themselves from the world’s discriminating eyes, or the great lengths many will go to achieve better health and the promise of longevity, navigating life as an obese person requires a thick skin.
So, it’s no wonder so many are willing to pay more than $1,000 a month out of pocket to get their hands on drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). The benefits of these drugs, which are part of a new class called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, include significant and rapid weight loss, blood sugar control, and improved life quality; they are unprecedented in a setting where surgery has long been considered the most effective long-term option.
On the flip side, the desire for rapid weight loss and better blood sugar control also comes with an unexpected cost. , making an unintended pregnancy more likely.
Neel Shah, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said he has had several patients become pregnant without intending to.
“It was when Mounjaro came out on the market when we started using it,” he said of the drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for type 2 diabetes in 2022. “It [the warning] was in the product insert, but clinically speaking, I don’t know if it was at the top of providers’ minds when they were prescribing Mounjaro.”
When asked if he believed that we were going to be seeing a significant increase in so-called Mounjaro babies, Dr. Shah was sure in his response.
“Absolutely. We will because the sheer volume [of patients] will increase,” he said.
It’s all in the gut
One of the ways that drugs like Mounjaro work is by delaying the time that it takes for food to move from the stomach to the small intestine. Although data are still evolving, it is believed that this process – delayed gastric emptying – may affect the absorption of birth control pills.
Dr. Shah said another theory is that vomiting, which is a common side effect of these types of drugs, also affects the pills’ ability to prevent pregnancy.
And “there’s a prolonged period of ramping up the dose because of the GI side effects,” said Pinar Kodaman, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist and assistant professor of gynecology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
“Initially, at the lowest dose, there may not be a lot of potential effect on absorption and gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes more common, and it can cause diarrhea, which is another condition that can affect the absorption of any medication,” she said.
Unanticipated outcomes, extra prevention
Roughly 42% of women in the United States are obese, 40% of whom are between the ages of 20 and 39. Although these new drugs can improve fertility outcomes for women who are obese (especially those with polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS), only one – Mounjaro – currently carries a warning about birth control pill effectiveness on its label. Unfortunately, it appears that some doctors are unaware or not counseling patients about this risk, and the data are unclear about whether other drugs in this class, like Ozempic and Wegovy, have the same risks.
“To date, it hasn’t been a typical thing that we counsel about,” said Dr. Kodaman. “It’s all fairly new, but when we have patients on birth control pills, we do review other medications that they are on because some can affect efficacy, and it’s something to keep in mind.”
It’s also unclear if other forms of birth control – for example, birth control patches that deliver through the skin – might carry similar pregnancy risks. Dr. Shah said some of his patients who became pregnant without intending to were using these patches. This raises even more questions, since they deliver drugs through the skin directly into the bloodstream and not through the GI system.
What can women do to help ensure that they don’t become pregnant while using these drugs?
“I really think that if patients want to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy, that as soon as they start the GLP receptor agonists, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use condoms, because the onset of action is pretty quick,” said Dr. Kodaman, noting also that “at the lowest dose there may not be a lot of potential effect on gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes much more common or can cause diarrhea.”
Dr. Shah said that in his practice he’s “been telling patients to add barrier contraception” 4 weeks before they start their first dose “and at any dose adjustment.”
Zoobia Chaudhry, an obesity medicine doctor and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, recommends that “patients just make sure that the injection and medication that they take are at least 1 hour apart.”
“Most of the time, patients do take birth control before bedtime, so if the two are spaced, it should be OK,” she said.
Another option is for women to speak to their doctors about other contraceptive options like IUDs or implantable rods, where gastric absorption is not going to be an issue.
“There’s very little research on this class of drugs,” said Emily Goodstein, a 40-year-old small-business owner in Washington, who recently switched from Ozempic to Mounjaro. “Being a person who lives in a larger body is such a horrifying experience because of the way that the world discriminates against you.”
She appreciates the feeling of being proactive that these new drugs grant. It has “opened up a bunch of opportunities for me to be seen as a full individual by the medical establishment,” she said. “I was willing to take the risk, knowing that I would be on these drugs for the rest of my life.”
In addition to being what Dr. Goodstein refers to as a guinea pig, she said she made sure that her primary care doctor was aware that she was not trying or planning to become pregnant again. (She has a 3-year-old child.) Still, her doctor mentioned only the most common side effects linked to these drugs, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and did not mention the risk of pregnancy.
“Folks are really not talking about the reproductive implications,” she said, referring to members of a Facebook group on these drugs that she belongs to.
Like patients themselves, many doctors are just beginning to get their arms around these agents. “Awareness, education, provider involvement, and having a multidisciplinary team could help patients achieve the goals that they set out for themselves,” said Dr. Shah.
Clear conversations are key.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA approves bimekizumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults
, the manufacturer announced in a press release.
The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.
Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
Available in about 1 month in U.S.
Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.
The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.
Three phase 3 trials
Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).
“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.
Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:
- Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
- Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
- Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.
Safety information
The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.
Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the manufacturer announced in a press release.
The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.
Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
Available in about 1 month in U.S.
Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.
The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.
Three phase 3 trials
Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).
“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.
Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:
- Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
- Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
- Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.
Safety information
The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.
Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the manufacturer announced in a press release.
The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.
Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
Available in about 1 month in U.S.
Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.
The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.
Three phase 3 trials
Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).
“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.
Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:
- Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
- Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
- Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.
Safety information
The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.
Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Once-weekly topical therapy shows promise for moderate to severe acne
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
- In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
- The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
- Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
- Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
- At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”
SOURCE:
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
- In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
- The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
- Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
- Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
- At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”
SOURCE:
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
- In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
- The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
- Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
- Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
- At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”
SOURCE:
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves nivolumab for resected stage IIB/C melanoma
The , expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.
Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.
The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.
Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.
Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.
The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The , expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.
Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.
The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.
Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.
Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.
The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The , expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.
Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.
The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.
Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.
Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.
The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Approximately 20% of U.S. adults are diagnosed with arthritis
TOPLINE:
The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
- The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
- The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
- Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
- When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
- The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
- The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
- The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
- Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
- When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
- The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
- The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
- The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
- Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
- When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
- The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abatacept, certolizumab: Best biologics in early RA
TOPLINE:
In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODOLOGY:
The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.
Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:
- Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
- Certolizumab pegol.
- Abatacept.
- Tocilizumab.
In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
- The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
- No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.
LIMITATIONS:
The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODOLOGY:
The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.
Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:
- Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
- Certolizumab pegol.
- Abatacept.
- Tocilizumab.
In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
- The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
- No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.
LIMITATIONS:
The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODOLOGY:
The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.
Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:
- Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
- Certolizumab pegol.
- Abatacept.
- Tocilizumab.
In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
- The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
- No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.
LIMITATIONS:
The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Narcolepsy med shows early promise for adult ADHD
TOPLINE:
and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.
METHODOLOGY:
- Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
- Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
- The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
- Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.
TAKEAWAY:
- By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
- By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
- Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
- Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.
IN PRACTICE:
“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.
SOURCE:
The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.
METHODOLOGY:
- Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
- Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
- The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
- Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.
TAKEAWAY:
- By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
- By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
- Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
- Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.
IN PRACTICE:
“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.
SOURCE:
The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.
METHODOLOGY:
- Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
- Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
- The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
- Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.
TAKEAWAY:
- By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
- By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
- Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
- Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.
IN PRACTICE:
“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.
SOURCE:
The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.