Pharmacology

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

CLEVELAND – Patients with heart failure (HF) who are started on sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) in the hospital or soon after discharge will see a sharp drop in clinical risk whether their ejection fraction is “reduced” or merely “below normal,” suggests a combined analysis of two major studies.

Short-term risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization fell 30% for such patients put on the angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) at that early stage, compared with those assigned to receive an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Of note, the risk-reduction benefit reached 41% among the overwhelming majority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or lower across the two trials, PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF. No such significant benefit was seen in patients with higher LVEF.

The prespecified analysis of 1,347 patients medically stabilized after a “worsening-HF event” was reported by Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Across both studies, levels of the prognostically telling biomarker NT-proBNP dropped further in the ARNI group, by almost a fourth, compared with those getting an ACE inhibitor or ARB. The difference emerged within a week and was “similar and consistent” throughout at least 8 weeks of follow-up, Dr. Mentz said.

Sacubitril-valsartan is approved in the United States for chronic HF, broadly but with labeling suggesting clearer efficacy at lower LVEF levels, based on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials lending patients to the current analysis demonstrated superiority for the drug vs. an ACE inhibitor or ARB when started in hospital in stabilized patients with HF.
 

Cautions about starting sacubitril-valsartan

In the pooled analysis, patients on sacubitril-valsartan were more likely to experience symptomatic hypotension, with a relative risk for drug’s known potential side effect reaching 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.72), compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB recipients.

But the hypotension risk when starting the drug is manageable to some extent, observed Dr. Mentz. “We can safely start sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital or early post discharge, but we need to make sure their volume status is okay” and keep track of their blood pressure trajectory, he told this news organization.

Those with initially low BP, unsurprisingly, seem more susceptible to the problem, Dr. Mentz said. In such patients “on antihypertensives or other therapies that aren’t going to give them a clinical outcome benefit,” those meds can be withdrawn or their dosages reduced before sacubitril-valsartan is added.

Such cautions are an “important take-home message” of the analysis, observed invited discussant Carolyn S. P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, after the Dr. Mentz presentation.

Sacubitril-valsartan should be started only in stabilized patients, she emphasized. It should be delayed in those “with ongoing adjustments of antihypertensives, diuretics, and so on,” in whom premature initiation of the drug may promote symptomatic hypotension. Should that happen, Dr. Lam cautioned, there’s a risk that such patients would be “mislabeled as intolerant” of the ARNI and so wouldn’t be started on it later.

The pooled PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF analysis, Dr. Lam proposed, might also help overcome the “clinical inertia and fear” that is slowing the uptake of early guideline-directed drug therapy initiation in patients hospitalized with HF.
 

LVEF spectrum across two studies

As Dr. Mentz reported, the analysis included 881 and 466 patients from PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, respectively. Of the total, 673 were assigned to receive valsartan and 674 to receive either enalapril or valsartan. Overall, 36% of the population were women.

Patients in PIONEER-HF, with an LVEF 40% or lower, were started on their assigned drug during an acute-HF hospitalization and followed a median of 8 weeks. PARAGLIDE-HF patients, with LVEF higher than 40%, started therapy either in hospital (in 70% of cases) or within 30 days of their HF event; they were followed a median of 6 months.

Hazard ratios for outcomes in the sacubitril-valsartan group vs. those on ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .0001 for change in NT-proBNP levels. For the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization, HRs were as follows:

• 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P = .0077) overall.
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for LVEF < 60%.
• 1.53 (95% CI, 0.80-2.91) for LVEF > 60%.

Current guidelines, Dr. Mentz noted, recommend that sacubitril-valsartan “be initiated de novo” predischarge in patients without contraindications who are hospitalized with acute HF with reduced LVEF. The combined analysis of PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, he said, potentially extends the recommendation “across the ejection fraction spectrum.”

Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr. Lam has reported financial relationships “with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure,” as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC.

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

CLEVELAND – Patients with heart failure (HF) who are started on sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) in the hospital or soon after discharge will see a sharp drop in clinical risk whether their ejection fraction is “reduced” or merely “below normal,” suggests a combined analysis of two major studies.

Short-term risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization fell 30% for such patients put on the angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) at that early stage, compared with those assigned to receive an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Of note, the risk-reduction benefit reached 41% among the overwhelming majority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or lower across the two trials, PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF. No such significant benefit was seen in patients with higher LVEF.

The prespecified analysis of 1,347 patients medically stabilized after a “worsening-HF event” was reported by Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Across both studies, levels of the prognostically telling biomarker NT-proBNP dropped further in the ARNI group, by almost a fourth, compared with those getting an ACE inhibitor or ARB. The difference emerged within a week and was “similar and consistent” throughout at least 8 weeks of follow-up, Dr. Mentz said.

Sacubitril-valsartan is approved in the United States for chronic HF, broadly but with labeling suggesting clearer efficacy at lower LVEF levels, based on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials lending patients to the current analysis demonstrated superiority for the drug vs. an ACE inhibitor or ARB when started in hospital in stabilized patients with HF.
 

Cautions about starting sacubitril-valsartan

In the pooled analysis, patients on sacubitril-valsartan were more likely to experience symptomatic hypotension, with a relative risk for drug’s known potential side effect reaching 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.72), compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB recipients.

But the hypotension risk when starting the drug is manageable to some extent, observed Dr. Mentz. “We can safely start sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital or early post discharge, but we need to make sure their volume status is okay” and keep track of their blood pressure trajectory, he told this news organization.

Those with initially low BP, unsurprisingly, seem more susceptible to the problem, Dr. Mentz said. In such patients “on antihypertensives or other therapies that aren’t going to give them a clinical outcome benefit,” those meds can be withdrawn or their dosages reduced before sacubitril-valsartan is added.

Such cautions are an “important take-home message” of the analysis, observed invited discussant Carolyn S. P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, after the Dr. Mentz presentation.

Sacubitril-valsartan should be started only in stabilized patients, she emphasized. It should be delayed in those “with ongoing adjustments of antihypertensives, diuretics, and so on,” in whom premature initiation of the drug may promote symptomatic hypotension. Should that happen, Dr. Lam cautioned, there’s a risk that such patients would be “mislabeled as intolerant” of the ARNI and so wouldn’t be started on it later.

The pooled PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF analysis, Dr. Lam proposed, might also help overcome the “clinical inertia and fear” that is slowing the uptake of early guideline-directed drug therapy initiation in patients hospitalized with HF.
 

LVEF spectrum across two studies

As Dr. Mentz reported, the analysis included 881 and 466 patients from PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, respectively. Of the total, 673 were assigned to receive valsartan and 674 to receive either enalapril or valsartan. Overall, 36% of the population were women.

Patients in PIONEER-HF, with an LVEF 40% or lower, were started on their assigned drug during an acute-HF hospitalization and followed a median of 8 weeks. PARAGLIDE-HF patients, with LVEF higher than 40%, started therapy either in hospital (in 70% of cases) or within 30 days of their HF event; they were followed a median of 6 months.

Hazard ratios for outcomes in the sacubitril-valsartan group vs. those on ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .0001 for change in NT-proBNP levels. For the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization, HRs were as follows:

• 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P = .0077) overall.
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for LVEF < 60%.
• 1.53 (95% CI, 0.80-2.91) for LVEF > 60%.

Current guidelines, Dr. Mentz noted, recommend that sacubitril-valsartan “be initiated de novo” predischarge in patients without contraindications who are hospitalized with acute HF with reduced LVEF. The combined analysis of PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, he said, potentially extends the recommendation “across the ejection fraction spectrum.”

Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr. Lam has reported financial relationships “with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure,” as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC.

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

CLEVELAND – Patients with heart failure (HF) who are started on sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) in the hospital or soon after discharge will see a sharp drop in clinical risk whether their ejection fraction is “reduced” or merely “below normal,” suggests a combined analysis of two major studies.

Short-term risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization fell 30% for such patients put on the angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) at that early stage, compared with those assigned to receive an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Of note, the risk-reduction benefit reached 41% among the overwhelming majority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or lower across the two trials, PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF. No such significant benefit was seen in patients with higher LVEF.

The prespecified analysis of 1,347 patients medically stabilized after a “worsening-HF event” was reported by Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Across both studies, levels of the prognostically telling biomarker NT-proBNP dropped further in the ARNI group, by almost a fourth, compared with those getting an ACE inhibitor or ARB. The difference emerged within a week and was “similar and consistent” throughout at least 8 weeks of follow-up, Dr. Mentz said.

Sacubitril-valsartan is approved in the United States for chronic HF, broadly but with labeling suggesting clearer efficacy at lower LVEF levels, based on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials lending patients to the current analysis demonstrated superiority for the drug vs. an ACE inhibitor or ARB when started in hospital in stabilized patients with HF.
 

Cautions about starting sacubitril-valsartan

In the pooled analysis, patients on sacubitril-valsartan were more likely to experience symptomatic hypotension, with a relative risk for drug’s known potential side effect reaching 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.72), compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB recipients.

But the hypotension risk when starting the drug is manageable to some extent, observed Dr. Mentz. “We can safely start sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital or early post discharge, but we need to make sure their volume status is okay” and keep track of their blood pressure trajectory, he told this news organization.

Those with initially low BP, unsurprisingly, seem more susceptible to the problem, Dr. Mentz said. In such patients “on antihypertensives or other therapies that aren’t going to give them a clinical outcome benefit,” those meds can be withdrawn or their dosages reduced before sacubitril-valsartan is added.

Such cautions are an “important take-home message” of the analysis, observed invited discussant Carolyn S. P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, after the Dr. Mentz presentation.

Sacubitril-valsartan should be started only in stabilized patients, she emphasized. It should be delayed in those “with ongoing adjustments of antihypertensives, diuretics, and so on,” in whom premature initiation of the drug may promote symptomatic hypotension. Should that happen, Dr. Lam cautioned, there’s a risk that such patients would be “mislabeled as intolerant” of the ARNI and so wouldn’t be started on it later.

The pooled PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF analysis, Dr. Lam proposed, might also help overcome the “clinical inertia and fear” that is slowing the uptake of early guideline-directed drug therapy initiation in patients hospitalized with HF.
 

LVEF spectrum across two studies

As Dr. Mentz reported, the analysis included 881 and 466 patients from PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, respectively. Of the total, 673 were assigned to receive valsartan and 674 to receive either enalapril or valsartan. Overall, 36% of the population were women.

Patients in PIONEER-HF, with an LVEF 40% or lower, were started on their assigned drug during an acute-HF hospitalization and followed a median of 8 weeks. PARAGLIDE-HF patients, with LVEF higher than 40%, started therapy either in hospital (in 70% of cases) or within 30 days of their HF event; they were followed a median of 6 months.

Hazard ratios for outcomes in the sacubitril-valsartan group vs. those on ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .0001 for change in NT-proBNP levels. For the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization, HRs were as follows:

• 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P = .0077) overall.
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for LVEF < 60%.
• 1.53 (95% CI, 0.80-2.91) for LVEF > 60%.

Current guidelines, Dr. Mentz noted, recommend that sacubitril-valsartan “be initiated de novo” predischarge in patients without contraindications who are hospitalized with acute HF with reduced LVEF. The combined analysis of PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, he said, potentially extends the recommendation “across the ejection fraction spectrum.”

Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr. Lam has reported financial relationships “with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure,” as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC.

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

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

TOPLINE:

A topical fixed-dose combination of three approved acne treatments significantly improves moderate to severe acne with a strong safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• The two multicenter studies included 363 individuals aged 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne from 30 centers, including 15 in North America.
• Moderate to severe acne was defined as having 30-100 inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, or nodules), 35-150 noninflammatory lesions (open or closed comedones), and at least two nodules.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with a combination gel containing  phosphate 1.2%,  0.15%, and  3.1% (known as IDP-126) or a vehicle gel for once-daily application for 12 weeks.
• Treatment success was defined as a reduction of at least two grades from baseline on the Evaluator’s Global Severity Score (EGSS) and lesion counts of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Treatment success occurred in 49.6% of the IDP-126 group, vs 24.9% of the vehicle group in study 1, and in 50.5% of the IDP-126 group, vs 20.5% of the vehicle group in study 2. Overall treatment compliance was 93.7% and 91.3% for studies 1 and 2, respectively (P < .01 for both).
• Patients in the IDP-126 groups for both studies 1 and 2 had significantly greater absolute mean reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12 compared to the vehicle patients (P ≤ .001 for all).
• Significantly more patients in the IDP-126 group achieved a grade reduction of 2 or more in EGSS compared with those who received the vehicle, with treatment differences of approximately 32% in both studies. Changes in lesion reductions between the treatment and the vehicle groups were significantly greater as early as week 4.
• The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with IDP-126 were erythema, application-site pain, dryness, irritation, and exfoliation. Discontinuation of the study drug as a result of adverse events occurred in 2.5% and 3.3% of these patients in studies 1 and 2, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“With its simple treatment regimen containing 3 recommended acne treatments (benzoyl peroxide, a topical retinoid, and a topical antibiotic), IDP-126 is a potential new treatment option for acne,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Linda Stein Gold, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

In both studies, treatment duration was short, and the studies may not reflect patients’ real-world experiences. The results may be affected by interobserver bias or variation in assessment of acne severity.

DISCLOSURES:

Gold has served as investigator/consultant or speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, LEO Pharma, Dermavant, Incyte, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, Arcutis, and Lilly. Other study coauthors have relationships with multiple companies, including Ortho Dermatologics, which provided medical writing support for the study.

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

TOPLINE:

A topical fixed-dose combination of three approved acne treatments significantly improves moderate to severe acne with a strong safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• The two multicenter studies included 363 individuals aged 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne from 30 centers, including 15 in North America.
• Moderate to severe acne was defined as having 30-100 inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, or nodules), 35-150 noninflammatory lesions (open or closed comedones), and at least two nodules.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with a combination gel containing  phosphate 1.2%,  0.15%, and  3.1% (known as IDP-126) or a vehicle gel for once-daily application for 12 weeks.
• Treatment success was defined as a reduction of at least two grades from baseline on the Evaluator’s Global Severity Score (EGSS) and lesion counts of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Treatment success occurred in 49.6% of the IDP-126 group, vs 24.9% of the vehicle group in study 1, and in 50.5% of the IDP-126 group, vs 20.5% of the vehicle group in study 2. Overall treatment compliance was 93.7% and 91.3% for studies 1 and 2, respectively (P < .01 for both).
• Patients in the IDP-126 groups for both studies 1 and 2 had significantly greater absolute mean reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12 compared to the vehicle patients (P ≤ .001 for all).
• Significantly more patients in the IDP-126 group achieved a grade reduction of 2 or more in EGSS compared with those who received the vehicle, with treatment differences of approximately 32% in both studies. Changes in lesion reductions between the treatment and the vehicle groups were significantly greater as early as week 4.
• The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with IDP-126 were erythema, application-site pain, dryness, irritation, and exfoliation. Discontinuation of the study drug as a result of adverse events occurred in 2.5% and 3.3% of these patients in studies 1 and 2, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“With its simple treatment regimen containing 3 recommended acne treatments (benzoyl peroxide, a topical retinoid, and a topical antibiotic), IDP-126 is a potential new treatment option for acne,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Linda Stein Gold, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

In both studies, treatment duration was short, and the studies may not reflect patients’ real-world experiences. The results may be affected by interobserver bias or variation in assessment of acne severity.

DISCLOSURES:

Gold has served as investigator/consultant or speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, LEO Pharma, Dermavant, Incyte, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, Arcutis, and Lilly. Other study coauthors have relationships with multiple companies, including Ortho Dermatologics, which provided medical writing support for the study.

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

TOPLINE:

A topical fixed-dose combination of three approved acne treatments significantly improves moderate to severe acne with a strong safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• The two multicenter studies included 363 individuals aged 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne from 30 centers, including 15 in North America.
• Moderate to severe acne was defined as having 30-100 inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, or nodules), 35-150 noninflammatory lesions (open or closed comedones), and at least two nodules.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with a combination gel containing  phosphate 1.2%,  0.15%, and  3.1% (known as IDP-126) or a vehicle gel for once-daily application for 12 weeks.
• Treatment success was defined as a reduction of at least two grades from baseline on the Evaluator’s Global Severity Score (EGSS) and lesion counts of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Treatment success occurred in 49.6% of the IDP-126 group, vs 24.9% of the vehicle group in study 1, and in 50.5% of the IDP-126 group, vs 20.5% of the vehicle group in study 2. Overall treatment compliance was 93.7% and 91.3% for studies 1 and 2, respectively (P < .01 for both).
• Patients in the IDP-126 groups for both studies 1 and 2 had significantly greater absolute mean reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12 compared to the vehicle patients (P ≤ .001 for all).
• Significantly more patients in the IDP-126 group achieved a grade reduction of 2 or more in EGSS compared with those who received the vehicle, with treatment differences of approximately 32% in both studies. Changes in lesion reductions between the treatment and the vehicle groups were significantly greater as early as week 4.
• The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with IDP-126 were erythema, application-site pain, dryness, irritation, and exfoliation. Discontinuation of the study drug as a result of adverse events occurred in 2.5% and 3.3% of these patients in studies 1 and 2, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“With its simple treatment regimen containing 3 recommended acne treatments (benzoyl peroxide, a topical retinoid, and a topical antibiotic), IDP-126 is a potential new treatment option for acne,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Linda Stein Gold, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

In both studies, treatment duration was short, and the studies may not reflect patients’ real-world experiences. The results may be affected by interobserver bias or variation in assessment of acne severity.

DISCLOSURES:

Gold has served as investigator/consultant or speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, LEO Pharma, Dermavant, Incyte, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, Arcutis, and Lilly. Other study coauthors have relationships with multiple companies, including Ortho Dermatologics, which provided medical writing support for the study.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

People taking semaglutide or liraglutide for weight management are at a higher risk for rare but potentially serious gastrointestinal issues, compared with those taking naltrexone/bupropion, according to a large epidemiologic study.

Patients taking either of these glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had a 9-fold elevation in risk for pancreatitis. They were also 4 times more likely to develop bowel obstruction and over 3.5 times more likely to experience gastroparesis.

The research letter was published online in JAMA.

Investigators say their findings are not about scaring people off the weight-loss drugs, but instead about increasing awareness that these potential adverse outcomes can happen.

“Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients thinking about using them for weight loss,” said lead author Mohit Sodhi, MSc, in a news release about the study. Mr. Sodhi is a graduate of the experimental medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and also a 4th-year medical student at UBC.

People taking a GLP-1 agonist to treat diabetes might be more willing to accept the risks, given their potential advantages, especially that of lowering the risk for heart problems, said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, the study’s senior author and an expert in drug safety and pharmacoepidemiology at UBC. “But those who are otherwise healthy and just taking them for weight loss might want to be more careful in weighing the risk–benefit equation.”

People taking these drugs for weight loss have an approximately 1%-2% chance of experiencing these events, including a 1% risk for gastroparesis, Dr. Etminan said.
 

Key findings

The study included 4,144 people taking liraglutide, 613 taking semaglutide, and 654 taking naltrexone/bupropion based on medical records between 2006 and 2020.

They included patients with a recent history of obesity but excluded those with diabetes or who had been prescribed another diabetes medication.

The use of GLP-1 agonists, compared with naltrexone/bupropion, was associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-66.00), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-17.40), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.90).

The study also found a higher incidence of biliary disease, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.89-2.53). The incidence of biliary disease (per 1,000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for naltrexone/bupropion.
 

Not the first report of GI issues

“This important paper confirms the safety signals hinted at in previous randomized controlled trials,” said Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine, Ulster University, Coleraine, Ireland, and professor of experimental pathology at University College Dublin.

“The limitations of the paper are acknowledged but do not detract from the value of the robust data,” Dr. Le Roux said. “Patients should be informed of the low risk of serious complications, such as pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction, before they start semaglutide or liraglutide.”

This is not the first report of GI issues associated with GLP-1 agonists, but it’s one of the largest. Most reports have been anecdotal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Sept. 28 that it would require manufacturers to include a warning about gastrointestinal ileus on the Ozempic (semaglutide) label.

“The results from this study highlight how important it is that patients access these drugs only through trusted medical professionals, and only with ongoing support and monitoring,” noted Simon Cork, PhD, senior lecturer in physiology, Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.

Dr. Cork added that “it’s important to look at this in the proper context.” Obesity significantly increases the risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, gallbladder disease, and stroke, risks that fall dramatically with clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, he said.

“For the overwhelming majority of patients for whom these drugs are targeted (those with the most severe forms of obesity), the benefits of weight loss far outweigh the risks,” Dr. Cork said.

The study was independently supported. Mr. Sodhi, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Cork report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Le Roux is a consultant and has received research funding and reimbursement of travel expenses from Novo Nordisk.

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

People taking semaglutide or liraglutide for weight management are at a higher risk for rare but potentially serious gastrointestinal issues, compared with those taking naltrexone/bupropion, according to a large epidemiologic study.

Patients taking either of these glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had a 9-fold elevation in risk for pancreatitis. They were also 4 times more likely to develop bowel obstruction and over 3.5 times more likely to experience gastroparesis.

The research letter was published online in JAMA.

Investigators say their findings are not about scaring people off the weight-loss drugs, but instead about increasing awareness that these potential adverse outcomes can happen.

“Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients thinking about using them for weight loss,” said lead author Mohit Sodhi, MSc, in a news release about the study. Mr. Sodhi is a graduate of the experimental medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and also a 4th-year medical student at UBC.

People taking a GLP-1 agonist to treat diabetes might be more willing to accept the risks, given their potential advantages, especially that of lowering the risk for heart problems, said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, the study’s senior author and an expert in drug safety and pharmacoepidemiology at UBC. “But those who are otherwise healthy and just taking them for weight loss might want to be more careful in weighing the risk–benefit equation.”

People taking these drugs for weight loss have an approximately 1%-2% chance of experiencing these events, including a 1% risk for gastroparesis, Dr. Etminan said.
 

Key findings

The study included 4,144 people taking liraglutide, 613 taking semaglutide, and 654 taking naltrexone/bupropion based on medical records between 2006 and 2020.

They included patients with a recent history of obesity but excluded those with diabetes or who had been prescribed another diabetes medication.

The use of GLP-1 agonists, compared with naltrexone/bupropion, was associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-66.00), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-17.40), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.90).

The study also found a higher incidence of biliary disease, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.89-2.53). The incidence of biliary disease (per 1,000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for naltrexone/bupropion.
 

Not the first report of GI issues

“This important paper confirms the safety signals hinted at in previous randomized controlled trials,” said Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine, Ulster University, Coleraine, Ireland, and professor of experimental pathology at University College Dublin.

“The limitations of the paper are acknowledged but do not detract from the value of the robust data,” Dr. Le Roux said. “Patients should be informed of the low risk of serious complications, such as pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction, before they start semaglutide or liraglutide.”

This is not the first report of GI issues associated with GLP-1 agonists, but it’s one of the largest. Most reports have been anecdotal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Sept. 28 that it would require manufacturers to include a warning about gastrointestinal ileus on the Ozempic (semaglutide) label.

“The results from this study highlight how important it is that patients access these drugs only through trusted medical professionals, and only with ongoing support and monitoring,” noted Simon Cork, PhD, senior lecturer in physiology, Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.

Dr. Cork added that “it’s important to look at this in the proper context.” Obesity significantly increases the risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, gallbladder disease, and stroke, risks that fall dramatically with clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, he said.

“For the overwhelming majority of patients for whom these drugs are targeted (those with the most severe forms of obesity), the benefits of weight loss far outweigh the risks,” Dr. Cork said.

The study was independently supported. Mr. Sodhi, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Cork report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Le Roux is a consultant and has received research funding and reimbursement of travel expenses from Novo Nordisk.

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

People taking semaglutide or liraglutide for weight management are at a higher risk for rare but potentially serious gastrointestinal issues, compared with those taking naltrexone/bupropion, according to a large epidemiologic study.

Patients taking either of these glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had a 9-fold elevation in risk for pancreatitis. They were also 4 times more likely to develop bowel obstruction and over 3.5 times more likely to experience gastroparesis.

The research letter was published online in JAMA.

Investigators say their findings are not about scaring people off the weight-loss drugs, but instead about increasing awareness that these potential adverse outcomes can happen.

“Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients thinking about using them for weight loss,” said lead author Mohit Sodhi, MSc, in a news release about the study. Mr. Sodhi is a graduate of the experimental medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and also a 4th-year medical student at UBC.

People taking a GLP-1 agonist to treat diabetes might be more willing to accept the risks, given their potential advantages, especially that of lowering the risk for heart problems, said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, the study’s senior author and an expert in drug safety and pharmacoepidemiology at UBC. “But those who are otherwise healthy and just taking them for weight loss might want to be more careful in weighing the risk–benefit equation.”

People taking these drugs for weight loss have an approximately 1%-2% chance of experiencing these events, including a 1% risk for gastroparesis, Dr. Etminan said.
 

Key findings

The study included 4,144 people taking liraglutide, 613 taking semaglutide, and 654 taking naltrexone/bupropion based on medical records between 2006 and 2020.

They included patients with a recent history of obesity but excluded those with diabetes or who had been prescribed another diabetes medication.

The use of GLP-1 agonists, compared with naltrexone/bupropion, was associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-66.00), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-17.40), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.90).

The study also found a higher incidence of biliary disease, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.89-2.53). The incidence of biliary disease (per 1,000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for naltrexone/bupropion.
 

Not the first report of GI issues

“This important paper confirms the safety signals hinted at in previous randomized controlled trials,” said Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine, Ulster University, Coleraine, Ireland, and professor of experimental pathology at University College Dublin.

“The limitations of the paper are acknowledged but do not detract from the value of the robust data,” Dr. Le Roux said. “Patients should be informed of the low risk of serious complications, such as pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction, before they start semaglutide or liraglutide.”

This is not the first report of GI issues associated with GLP-1 agonists, but it’s one of the largest. Most reports have been anecdotal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Sept. 28 that it would require manufacturers to include a warning about gastrointestinal ileus on the Ozempic (semaglutide) label.

“The results from this study highlight how important it is that patients access these drugs only through trusted medical professionals, and only with ongoing support and monitoring,” noted Simon Cork, PhD, senior lecturer in physiology, Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.

Dr. Cork added that “it’s important to look at this in the proper context.” Obesity significantly increases the risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, gallbladder disease, and stroke, risks that fall dramatically with clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, he said.

“For the overwhelming majority of patients for whom these drugs are targeted (those with the most severe forms of obesity), the benefits of weight loss far outweigh the risks,” Dr. Cork said.

The study was independently supported. Mr. Sodhi, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Cork report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Le Roux is a consultant and has received research funding and reimbursement of travel expenses from Novo Nordisk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wide range of adverse outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmatory research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wide range of adverse outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmatory research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wide range of adverse outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmatory research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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