Pharmacology

Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence for at least 10 years, according to investigators.

The benefit of trastuzumab was greater among patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease than those with HR– disease until the 5-year timepoint, after which HR status had no significant impact on recurrence rates, reported lead author Saranya Chumsri, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues. This finding echoes a pattern similar to that of HER2– breast cancer, in which patients with HR+ disease have relatively consistent risk of recurrence over time, whereas patients with HR– disease have an early risk of recurrence that decreases after 5 years.

“To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is the first to address the risk of late relapses in subsets of HER2+ breast cancer patients who were treated with adjuvant trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

They drew data from 3,177 patients with HER2+ breast cancer who were involved in two phase 3 studies: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 trials. Patients involved in the analysis received either standard adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy regimen plus concurrent trastuzumab. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as time from randomization until local, regional, or distant recurrence of breast cancer or breast cancer–related death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to determine recurrence-free survival, while Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine factors that predicted relapse.

Including a median follow-up of 8 years across all patients, the analysis showed that those with HR+ breast cancer had a significantly higher estimated rate of recurrence-free survival than that of those with HR– disease after 5 years (81.49% vs. 74.65%) and 10 years (73.84% vs. 69.22%). Overall, a comparable level of benefit was derived from adding trastuzumab regardless of HR status (interaction P = .87). However, during the first 5 years, HR positivity predicted greater benefit from adding trastuzumab, as patients with HR+ disease had a 40% lower risk of relapse than that of those with HR– disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; P less than .001). Between years 5 and 10, the statistical significance of HR status faded (P = .12), suggesting that HR status is not a predictor of long-term recurrence.

“Given concerning adverse effects and potentially smaller benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly in patients with N0 or N1 disease, our findings highlight the need to develop better risk prediction models and biomarkers to identify which patients have sufficient risk for late relapse to warrant the use of extended endocrine therapy in HER2+ breast cancer,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Bankhead-Coley Research Program, the DONNA Foundation, and Genentech. Dr. Chumsri disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Coauthors disclosed ties with Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and NanoString Technologies.

SOURCE: Chumsri et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00443.

Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence for at least 10 years, according to investigators.

The benefit of trastuzumab was greater among patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease than those with HR– disease until the 5-year timepoint, after which HR status had no significant impact on recurrence rates, reported lead author Saranya Chumsri, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues. This finding echoes a pattern similar to that of HER2– breast cancer, in which patients with HR+ disease have relatively consistent risk of recurrence over time, whereas patients with HR– disease have an early risk of recurrence that decreases after 5 years.

“To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is the first to address the risk of late relapses in subsets of HER2+ breast cancer patients who were treated with adjuvant trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

They drew data from 3,177 patients with HER2+ breast cancer who were involved in two phase 3 studies: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 trials. Patients involved in the analysis received either standard adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy regimen plus concurrent trastuzumab. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as time from randomization until local, regional, or distant recurrence of breast cancer or breast cancer–related death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to determine recurrence-free survival, while Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine factors that predicted relapse.

Including a median follow-up of 8 years across all patients, the analysis showed that those with HR+ breast cancer had a significantly higher estimated rate of recurrence-free survival than that of those with HR– disease after 5 years (81.49% vs. 74.65%) and 10 years (73.84% vs. 69.22%). Overall, a comparable level of benefit was derived from adding trastuzumab regardless of HR status (interaction P = .87). However, during the first 5 years, HR positivity predicted greater benefit from adding trastuzumab, as patients with HR+ disease had a 40% lower risk of relapse than that of those with HR– disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; P less than .001). Between years 5 and 10, the statistical significance of HR status faded (P = .12), suggesting that HR status is not a predictor of long-term recurrence.

“Given concerning adverse effects and potentially smaller benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly in patients with N0 or N1 disease, our findings highlight the need to develop better risk prediction models and biomarkers to identify which patients have sufficient risk for late relapse to warrant the use of extended endocrine therapy in HER2+ breast cancer,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Bankhead-Coley Research Program, the DONNA Foundation, and Genentech. Dr. Chumsri disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Coauthors disclosed ties with Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and NanoString Technologies.

SOURCE: Chumsri et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00443.

Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence for at least 10 years, according to investigators.

The benefit of trastuzumab was greater among patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease than those with HR– disease until the 5-year timepoint, after which HR status had no significant impact on recurrence rates, reported lead author Saranya Chumsri, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues. This finding echoes a pattern similar to that of HER2– breast cancer, in which patients with HR+ disease have relatively consistent risk of recurrence over time, whereas patients with HR– disease have an early risk of recurrence that decreases after 5 years.

“To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is the first to address the risk of late relapses in subsets of HER2+ breast cancer patients who were treated with adjuvant trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

They drew data from 3,177 patients with HER2+ breast cancer who were involved in two phase 3 studies: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 trials. Patients involved in the analysis received either standard adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy regimen plus concurrent trastuzumab. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as time from randomization until local, regional, or distant recurrence of breast cancer or breast cancer–related death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to determine recurrence-free survival, while Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine factors that predicted relapse.

Including a median follow-up of 8 years across all patients, the analysis showed that those with HR+ breast cancer had a significantly higher estimated rate of recurrence-free survival than that of those with HR– disease after 5 years (81.49% vs. 74.65%) and 10 years (73.84% vs. 69.22%). Overall, a comparable level of benefit was derived from adding trastuzumab regardless of HR status (interaction P = .87). However, during the first 5 years, HR positivity predicted greater benefit from adding trastuzumab, as patients with HR+ disease had a 40% lower risk of relapse than that of those with HR– disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; P less than .001). Between years 5 and 10, the statistical significance of HR status faded (P = .12), suggesting that HR status is not a predictor of long-term recurrence.

“Given concerning adverse effects and potentially smaller benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly in patients with N0 or N1 disease, our findings highlight the need to develop better risk prediction models and biomarkers to identify which patients have sufficient risk for late relapse to warrant the use of extended endocrine therapy in HER2+ breast cancer,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Bankhead-Coley Research Program, the DONNA Foundation, and Genentech. Dr. Chumsri disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Coauthors disclosed ties with Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and NanoString Technologies.

SOURCE: Chumsri et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00443.

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.

The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).

The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.

“[Dapagliflozin] is the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”


In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.

[email protected]

The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.

The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).

The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.

“[Dapagliflozin] is the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”


In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.

[email protected]

The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.

The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).

The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.

“[Dapagliflozin] is the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”


In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – Selected antidiabetes medications appear to blunt the increased risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes, according to a Danish national case control registry study.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

This benefit applies to the newer antidiabetic agents – specifically, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, and the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – and metformin as well, Merete Osler, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, neither insulin nor the sulfonylureas showed any signal of a protective effect against development of dementia. In fact, the use of sulfonylureas was associated with a small but statistically significant 7% increased risk, added Dr. Osler, of the University of Copenhagen.

Elsewhere at the meeting, investigators tapped a Swedish national registry to demonstrate that individuals with type 1 diabetes have a sharply reduced risk of developing schizophrenia.
 

Type 2 diabetes medications and dementia

Dr. Osler and colleagues are among several groups of investigators who have previously shown that patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of dementia.

“This has raised the question of the role of dysregulated glucose metabolism in the development of this neurodegenerative disorder, and the possible effect of antidiabetic medications,” she noted.

To further explore this issue, which links two great ongoing global epidemics, Dr. Osler and coinvestigators conducted a nested case-control study including all 176,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in the comprehensive Danish National Diabetes Register for 1995-2012. The 11,619 patients with type 2 diabetes who received a dementia diagnosis were matched with 46,476 type 2 diabetes patients without dementia. The objective was to determine associations between dementia and ever-use and cumulative dose of antidiabetes drugs, alone and in combination, in logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbid conditions, marital status, diabetic complications, and year of dementia diagnosis.

Patients who had ever used metformin had an adjusted 6% reduction in the likelihood of dementia compared with metformin nonusers, a modest but statistically significant difference. Those on a DPP4 inhibitor had a 20% reduction in risk. The GLP1 analogs were associated with a 42% decrease in risk. So were the SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-response relationship was evident: The higher the cumulative exposure to these agents, the lower the odds of dementia.

Combination therapy is common in type 2 diabetes, so the investigators scrutinized the impact of a variety of multidrug combinations. The clear winner in terms of the magnitude of associated reduction in dementia risk were the combinations including an SGLT2 inhibitor, with a 62% relative risk reduction. Combinations including a DPP4 inhibitor or GLP1 analog were also associated with significantly reduced dementia risk.

Records of glycemic control in the form of hemoglobin A_1c values were available on only 1,446 type 2 diabetic dementia patients and 4,003 matched controls. An analysis that incorporated this variable showed that the observed anti-dementia effect of selected diabetes drugs was independent of glycemic control, according to Dr. Osler.

The protective effect appeared to extend to both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementias, although firm conclusions can’t be drawn on this score because the study was insufficiently powered to address that issue.

Dr. Osler noted that the Danish study confirms a recent Taiwanese study showing an apparent protective effect against dementia for metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 1;10(1):37-48).

“Ours is the first study on the newer diabetic drugs, so our results need to be confirmed,” she pointed out.

If confirmed, however, it would warrant exploration of these drugs more generally as potential interventions to prevent dementia. That could open a whole new chapter in the remarkable story of the SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of drugs originally developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes but which in major randomized clinical trials later proved to be so effective in the treatment of heart failure that they are now considered cardiology drugs first.

Asked if she thinks these antidiabetes agents have a general neuroprotective effect or, instead, that the observed reduced risk of dementia is a function of patients being treated better early on with modern drugs, the psychiatrist replied, “I think it might be a combination of both, especially because we find different risk estimates between the drugs.”

Dr. Osler reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was funded by the Danish Diabetes Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, and several other foundations.

The full study details were published online shortly before her presentation at ECNP 2019 (Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1. pii: EJE-19-0259.R1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0259).

Type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia risk

Kristina Melkersson, MD, PhD, presented a cohort study that utilized Swedish national registries to examine the relationship between type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia. The study comprised 1,745,977 individuals, of whom 10,117 had type 1 diabetes, who were followed for a median of 9.7 and maximum of 18 years from their 13th birthday. During follow-up, 1,280 individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 649 others with schizoaffective disorder. The adjusted risk of schizophrenia was 70% lower in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, there was no difference in the risk of schizoaffective disorder in the type 1 diabetic versus nondiabetic subjects.

The Swedish data confirm the findings of an earlier Finnish national study showing that the risk of schizophrenia is reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):894-9). These findings raise the intriguing possibility that autoimmunity somehow figures into the etiology of the psychiatric disorder. Other investigators have previously reported a reduced prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with schizophrenia, noted Dr. Melkersson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Osler M. ECNP Abstract P180. Melkersson K. Abstract 81.

COPENHAGEN – Selected antidiabetes medications appear to blunt the increased risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes, according to a Danish national case control registry study.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

This benefit applies to the newer antidiabetic agents – specifically, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, and the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – and metformin as well, Merete Osler, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, neither insulin nor the sulfonylureas showed any signal of a protective effect against development of dementia. In fact, the use of sulfonylureas was associated with a small but statistically significant 7% increased risk, added Dr. Osler, of the University of Copenhagen.

Elsewhere at the meeting, investigators tapped a Swedish national registry to demonstrate that individuals with type 1 diabetes have a sharply reduced risk of developing schizophrenia.
 

Type 2 diabetes medications and dementia

Dr. Osler and colleagues are among several groups of investigators who have previously shown that patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of dementia.

“This has raised the question of the role of dysregulated glucose metabolism in the development of this neurodegenerative disorder, and the possible effect of antidiabetic medications,” she noted.

To further explore this issue, which links two great ongoing global epidemics, Dr. Osler and coinvestigators conducted a nested case-control study including all 176,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in the comprehensive Danish National Diabetes Register for 1995-2012. The 11,619 patients with type 2 diabetes who received a dementia diagnosis were matched with 46,476 type 2 diabetes patients without dementia. The objective was to determine associations between dementia and ever-use and cumulative dose of antidiabetes drugs, alone and in combination, in logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbid conditions, marital status, diabetic complications, and year of dementia diagnosis.

Patients who had ever used metformin had an adjusted 6% reduction in the likelihood of dementia compared with metformin nonusers, a modest but statistically significant difference. Those on a DPP4 inhibitor had a 20% reduction in risk. The GLP1 analogs were associated with a 42% decrease in risk. So were the SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-response relationship was evident: The higher the cumulative exposure to these agents, the lower the odds of dementia.

Combination therapy is common in type 2 diabetes, so the investigators scrutinized the impact of a variety of multidrug combinations. The clear winner in terms of the magnitude of associated reduction in dementia risk were the combinations including an SGLT2 inhibitor, with a 62% relative risk reduction. Combinations including a DPP4 inhibitor or GLP1 analog were also associated with significantly reduced dementia risk.

Records of glycemic control in the form of hemoglobin A_1c values were available on only 1,446 type 2 diabetic dementia patients and 4,003 matched controls. An analysis that incorporated this variable showed that the observed anti-dementia effect of selected diabetes drugs was independent of glycemic control, according to Dr. Osler.

The protective effect appeared to extend to both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementias, although firm conclusions can’t be drawn on this score because the study was insufficiently powered to address that issue.

Dr. Osler noted that the Danish study confirms a recent Taiwanese study showing an apparent protective effect against dementia for metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 1;10(1):37-48).

“Ours is the first study on the newer diabetic drugs, so our results need to be confirmed,” she pointed out.

If confirmed, however, it would warrant exploration of these drugs more generally as potential interventions to prevent dementia. That could open a whole new chapter in the remarkable story of the SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of drugs originally developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes but which in major randomized clinical trials later proved to be so effective in the treatment of heart failure that they are now considered cardiology drugs first.

Asked if she thinks these antidiabetes agents have a general neuroprotective effect or, instead, that the observed reduced risk of dementia is a function of patients being treated better early on with modern drugs, the psychiatrist replied, “I think it might be a combination of both, especially because we find different risk estimates between the drugs.”

Dr. Osler reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was funded by the Danish Diabetes Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, and several other foundations.

The full study details were published online shortly before her presentation at ECNP 2019 (Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1. pii: EJE-19-0259.R1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0259).

Type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia risk

Kristina Melkersson, MD, PhD, presented a cohort study that utilized Swedish national registries to examine the relationship between type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia. The study comprised 1,745,977 individuals, of whom 10,117 had type 1 diabetes, who were followed for a median of 9.7 and maximum of 18 years from their 13th birthday. During follow-up, 1,280 individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 649 others with schizoaffective disorder. The adjusted risk of schizophrenia was 70% lower in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, there was no difference in the risk of schizoaffective disorder in the type 1 diabetic versus nondiabetic subjects.

The Swedish data confirm the findings of an earlier Finnish national study showing that the risk of schizophrenia is reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):894-9). These findings raise the intriguing possibility that autoimmunity somehow figures into the etiology of the psychiatric disorder. Other investigators have previously reported a reduced prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with schizophrenia, noted Dr. Melkersson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Osler M. ECNP Abstract P180. Melkersson K. Abstract 81.

COPENHAGEN – Selected antidiabetes medications appear to blunt the increased risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes, according to a Danish national case control registry study.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

This benefit applies to the newer antidiabetic agents – specifically, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, and the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – and metformin as well, Merete Osler, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, neither insulin nor the sulfonylureas showed any signal of a protective effect against development of dementia. In fact, the use of sulfonylureas was associated with a small but statistically significant 7% increased risk, added Dr. Osler, of the University of Copenhagen.

Elsewhere at the meeting, investigators tapped a Swedish national registry to demonstrate that individuals with type 1 diabetes have a sharply reduced risk of developing schizophrenia.
 

Type 2 diabetes medications and dementia

Dr. Osler and colleagues are among several groups of investigators who have previously shown that patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of dementia.

“This has raised the question of the role of dysregulated glucose metabolism in the development of this neurodegenerative disorder, and the possible effect of antidiabetic medications,” she noted.

To further explore this issue, which links two great ongoing global epidemics, Dr. Osler and coinvestigators conducted a nested case-control study including all 176,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in the comprehensive Danish National Diabetes Register for 1995-2012. The 11,619 patients with type 2 diabetes who received a dementia diagnosis were matched with 46,476 type 2 diabetes patients without dementia. The objective was to determine associations between dementia and ever-use and cumulative dose of antidiabetes drugs, alone and in combination, in logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbid conditions, marital status, diabetic complications, and year of dementia diagnosis.

Patients who had ever used metformin had an adjusted 6% reduction in the likelihood of dementia compared with metformin nonusers, a modest but statistically significant difference. Those on a DPP4 inhibitor had a 20% reduction in risk. The GLP1 analogs were associated with a 42% decrease in risk. So were the SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-response relationship was evident: The higher the cumulative exposure to these agents, the lower the odds of dementia.

Combination therapy is common in type 2 diabetes, so the investigators scrutinized the impact of a variety of multidrug combinations. The clear winner in terms of the magnitude of associated reduction in dementia risk were the combinations including an SGLT2 inhibitor, with a 62% relative risk reduction. Combinations including a DPP4 inhibitor or GLP1 analog were also associated with significantly reduced dementia risk.

Records of glycemic control in the form of hemoglobin A_1c values were available on only 1,446 type 2 diabetic dementia patients and 4,003 matched controls. An analysis that incorporated this variable showed that the observed anti-dementia effect of selected diabetes drugs was independent of glycemic control, according to Dr. Osler.

The protective effect appeared to extend to both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementias, although firm conclusions can’t be drawn on this score because the study was insufficiently powered to address that issue.

Dr. Osler noted that the Danish study confirms a recent Taiwanese study showing an apparent protective effect against dementia for metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 1;10(1):37-48).

“Ours is the first study on the newer diabetic drugs, so our results need to be confirmed,” she pointed out.

If confirmed, however, it would warrant exploration of these drugs more generally as potential interventions to prevent dementia. That could open a whole new chapter in the remarkable story of the SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of drugs originally developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes but which in major randomized clinical trials later proved to be so effective in the treatment of heart failure that they are now considered cardiology drugs first.

Asked if she thinks these antidiabetes agents have a general neuroprotective effect or, instead, that the observed reduced risk of dementia is a function of patients being treated better early on with modern drugs, the psychiatrist replied, “I think it might be a combination of both, especially because we find different risk estimates between the drugs.”

Dr. Osler reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was funded by the Danish Diabetes Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, and several other foundations.

The full study details were published online shortly before her presentation at ECNP 2019 (Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1. pii: EJE-19-0259.R1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0259).

Type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia risk

Kristina Melkersson, MD, PhD, presented a cohort study that utilized Swedish national registries to examine the relationship between type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia. The study comprised 1,745,977 individuals, of whom 10,117 had type 1 diabetes, who were followed for a median of 9.7 and maximum of 18 years from their 13th birthday. During follow-up, 1,280 individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 649 others with schizoaffective disorder. The adjusted risk of schizophrenia was 70% lower in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, there was no difference in the risk of schizoaffective disorder in the type 1 diabetic versus nondiabetic subjects.

The Swedish data confirm the findings of an earlier Finnish national study showing that the risk of schizophrenia is reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):894-9). These findings raise the intriguing possibility that autoimmunity somehow figures into the etiology of the psychiatric disorder. Other investigators have previously reported a reduced prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with schizophrenia, noted Dr. Melkersson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Osler M. ECNP Abstract P180. Melkersson K. Abstract 81.

An investigation into a potential biomarker for response to methotrexate found that changes in DNA methylation at 4 weeks were associated with improvements in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at 6 months.

Zffoto/Thinkstock

“The findings in the current study are promising and appear to identify methylation patterns that are predictive of improvement of SJC [swollen joint count] and CRP [C-reactive protein],” wrote Nisha Nair, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and her coauthors. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The investigators analyzed DNA samples taken from patients recruited into the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS) who had RA or inflammatory polyarthritis and were beginning methotrexate for the first time. The samples were collected at baseline and at 4 weeks from patients who were classified as having good (n = 34) or poor (n = 34) responses to methotrexate after 6 months according to European League Against Rheumatism response criteria, in which good response was defined as having a 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) of 3.2 or less and a 1.2-point improvement in DAS28 at 6 months, and poor response was defined as having DAS28 higher than 5.1 and improvement of 0.6 points or less at 6 months.

After analysis, two differentially methylated positions that differed between good and poor responders were identified in samples taken at the 4-week mark (P less than 1 × 10^–6). Four CpG (cytosine-phosphate-guanine) sites also predicted improvements in RA patients at 6 months: Two sites associated increased methylation in good responders at 4 weeks with long-term SJC improvement, while two others associated increased methylation at baseline and in good responders at 4 weeks with improvement of CRP levels.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that the relapsing nature of RA could have contributed to natural variance in DAS28. In addition, the study’s lack of a control group does not allow for separating prognostic from theranostic biomarkers, although they added that “in terms of selecting treatments that will be effective, that may not necessarily matter in the clinical setting.”

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Nair N et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez411

An investigation into a potential biomarker for response to methotrexate found that changes in DNA methylation at 4 weeks were associated with improvements in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at 6 months.

Zffoto/Thinkstock

“The findings in the current study are promising and appear to identify methylation patterns that are predictive of improvement of SJC [swollen joint count] and CRP [C-reactive protein],” wrote Nisha Nair, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and her coauthors. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The investigators analyzed DNA samples taken from patients recruited into the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS) who had RA or inflammatory polyarthritis and were beginning methotrexate for the first time. The samples were collected at baseline and at 4 weeks from patients who were classified as having good (n = 34) or poor (n = 34) responses to methotrexate after 6 months according to European League Against Rheumatism response criteria, in which good response was defined as having a 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) of 3.2 or less and a 1.2-point improvement in DAS28 at 6 months, and poor response was defined as having DAS28 higher than 5.1 and improvement of 0.6 points or less at 6 months.

After analysis, two differentially methylated positions that differed between good and poor responders were identified in samples taken at the 4-week mark (P less than 1 × 10^–6). Four CpG (cytosine-phosphate-guanine) sites also predicted improvements in RA patients at 6 months: Two sites associated increased methylation in good responders at 4 weeks with long-term SJC improvement, while two others associated increased methylation at baseline and in good responders at 4 weeks with improvement of CRP levels.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that the relapsing nature of RA could have contributed to natural variance in DAS28. In addition, the study’s lack of a control group does not allow for separating prognostic from theranostic biomarkers, although they added that “in terms of selecting treatments that will be effective, that may not necessarily matter in the clinical setting.”

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Nair N et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez411

An investigation into a potential biomarker for response to methotrexate found that changes in DNA methylation at 4 weeks were associated with improvements in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at 6 months.

Zffoto/Thinkstock

“The findings in the current study are promising and appear to identify methylation patterns that are predictive of improvement of SJC [swollen joint count] and CRP [C-reactive protein],” wrote Nisha Nair, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and her coauthors. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The investigators analyzed DNA samples taken from patients recruited into the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS) who had RA or inflammatory polyarthritis and were beginning methotrexate for the first time. The samples were collected at baseline and at 4 weeks from patients who were classified as having good (n = 34) or poor (n = 34) responses to methotrexate after 6 months according to European League Against Rheumatism response criteria, in which good response was defined as having a 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) of 3.2 or less and a 1.2-point improvement in DAS28 at 6 months, and poor response was defined as having DAS28 higher than 5.1 and improvement of 0.6 points or less at 6 months.

After analysis, two differentially methylated positions that differed between good and poor responders were identified in samples taken at the 4-week mark (P less than 1 × 10^–6). Four CpG (cytosine-phosphate-guanine) sites also predicted improvements in RA patients at 6 months: Two sites associated increased methylation in good responders at 4 weeks with long-term SJC improvement, while two others associated increased methylation at baseline and in good responders at 4 weeks with improvement of CRP levels.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that the relapsing nature of RA could have contributed to natural variance in DAS28. In addition, the study’s lack of a control group does not allow for separating prognostic from theranostic biomarkers, although they added that “in terms of selecting treatments that will be effective, that may not necessarily matter in the clinical setting.”

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Nair N et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez411

SEATTLE – Treatment of psoriasis has been profoundly impacted by the advent of biologic therapies, but “topical therapy is not dead,” Linda Stein Gold, MD, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“We have to remember when we think back to our practice, how many topical prescriptions do we write, compared to preventive prescriptions? Probably most are topical,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Hospital Center, Detroit.

Topical agents have a place when a patient is doing well on treatment with a biologic but is not responding completely, she noted. One open-label, single-arm study looked at adjunctive calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Enstilar) foam, applied once daily for 4 week, then twice a week on consecutive days for 12 weeks in 25 patients with psoriasis who had a mean body surface area (BSA) of less than 5% but significant remaining disease despite treatment with biologics.

At week 4, 76% achieved a BSA of 1% or less and Physician’s Global Assessment score of 1 or less at week 4, as did 68% at week 16. This was compared with 12% and 4%, respectively (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Aug 1;17[8]:845-50). “They found that a good potent topical on top of a biologic does really well. That can really kick up the last part of the efficacy to get the patients almost to clear,” she observed.

At the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education, Dr. Stein Gold also discussed tazarotene, a topical retinoid approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating psoriasis and is available as a 0.1% and 0.05% cream and gel. About 10%-30% of patients experience side effects with tazarotene, such as pruritus, stinging, and burning. Topical corticosteroids can help, which prompted development of a combined product, she noted.

She referred to a phase 2 study of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, which compared the fixed combination lotion formulation of tazarotene plus halobetasol propionate to the two components alone. The investigators found almost a 9% rate of treatment success with tazarotene alone, versus about 23% with halobetasol propionate alone and about 43% with the combined product. The combined individual effect of the two drugs was about 32%, so the 43% efficacy of the combined product had an absolute synergistic effect of about 11%, Dr. Stein Gold pointed out.

Two phase 3 trials of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis supported the phase 2 results of the combined lotion formulation (halobetasol 0.01% with tazarotene 0.045%), said Dr. Stein Gold, the first author (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79[2]:287-93). Treatment success was defined as at least a 2-grade Investigator’s Global Assessment score and improvement from baseline and a score of “clear” or “almost clear.” In one of the studies, 36% of those on the combination versus 7% of those on the vehicle met this endpoint at week 8, as did 45% versus 13%, respectively, in the second study (P less than .001 for both studies).

Patients also had less itching, drying, and stinging than typically seen with tazarotene alone, Dr. Stein Gold said. In the studies, contact dermatitis was the most common side effect associated with treatment, reported in 6.3%

Dr. Stein Gold has received research support from Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, and Foamix. She has been a consultant for Sol-gel, Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, Foamix, Promis, Anacor, and Medimetriks. She has been on the speakers bureau of Galderma, Leo, Valeant, Novartis, Celgene, and Allergan. She has been a member of scientific advisory boards for Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, Foamix, and Promius.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.

SEATTLE – Treatment of psoriasis has been profoundly impacted by the advent of biologic therapies, but “topical therapy is not dead,” Linda Stein Gold, MD, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“We have to remember when we think back to our practice, how many topical prescriptions do we write, compared to preventive prescriptions? Probably most are topical,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Hospital Center, Detroit.

Topical agents have a place when a patient is doing well on treatment with a biologic but is not responding completely, she noted. One open-label, single-arm study looked at adjunctive calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Enstilar) foam, applied once daily for 4 week, then twice a week on consecutive days for 12 weeks in 25 patients with psoriasis who had a mean body surface area (BSA) of less than 5% but significant remaining disease despite treatment with biologics.

At week 4, 76% achieved a BSA of 1% or less and Physician’s Global Assessment score of 1 or less at week 4, as did 68% at week 16. This was compared with 12% and 4%, respectively (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Aug 1;17[8]:845-50). “They found that a good potent topical on top of a biologic does really well. That can really kick up the last part of the efficacy to get the patients almost to clear,” she observed.

At the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education, Dr. Stein Gold also discussed tazarotene, a topical retinoid approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating psoriasis and is available as a 0.1% and 0.05% cream and gel. About 10%-30% of patients experience side effects with tazarotene, such as pruritus, stinging, and burning. Topical corticosteroids can help, which prompted development of a combined product, she noted.

She referred to a phase 2 study of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, which compared the fixed combination lotion formulation of tazarotene plus halobetasol propionate to the two components alone. The investigators found almost a 9% rate of treatment success with tazarotene alone, versus about 23% with halobetasol propionate alone and about 43% with the combined product. The combined individual effect of the two drugs was about 32%, so the 43% efficacy of the combined product had an absolute synergistic effect of about 11%, Dr. Stein Gold pointed out.

Two phase 3 trials of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis supported the phase 2 results of the combined lotion formulation (halobetasol 0.01% with tazarotene 0.045%), said Dr. Stein Gold, the first author (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79[2]:287-93). Treatment success was defined as at least a 2-grade Investigator’s Global Assessment score and improvement from baseline and a score of “clear” or “almost clear.” In one of the studies, 36% of those on the combination versus 7% of those on the vehicle met this endpoint at week 8, as did 45% versus 13%, respectively, in the second study (P less than .001 for both studies).

Patients also had less itching, drying, and stinging than typically seen with tazarotene alone, Dr. Stein Gold said. In the studies, contact dermatitis was the most common side effect associated with treatment, reported in 6.3%

Dr. Stein Gold has received research support from Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, and Foamix. She has been a consultant for Sol-gel, Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, Foamix, Promis, Anacor, and Medimetriks. She has been on the speakers bureau of Galderma, Leo, Valeant, Novartis, Celgene, and Allergan. She has been a member of scientific advisory boards for Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, Foamix, and Promius.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.

SEATTLE – Treatment of psoriasis has been profoundly impacted by the advent of biologic therapies, but “topical therapy is not dead,” Linda Stein Gold, MD, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“We have to remember when we think back to our practice, how many topical prescriptions do we write, compared to preventive prescriptions? Probably most are topical,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Hospital Center, Detroit.

Topical agents have a place when a patient is doing well on treatment with a biologic but is not responding completely, she noted. One open-label, single-arm study looked at adjunctive calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Enstilar) foam, applied once daily for 4 week, then twice a week on consecutive days for 12 weeks in 25 patients with psoriasis who had a mean body surface area (BSA) of less than 5% but significant remaining disease despite treatment with biologics.

At week 4, 76% achieved a BSA of 1% or less and Physician’s Global Assessment score of 1 or less at week 4, as did 68% at week 16. This was compared with 12% and 4%, respectively (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Aug 1;17[8]:845-50). “They found that a good potent topical on top of a biologic does really well. That can really kick up the last part of the efficacy to get the patients almost to clear,” she observed.

At the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education, Dr. Stein Gold also discussed tazarotene, a topical retinoid approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating psoriasis and is available as a 0.1% and 0.05% cream and gel. About 10%-30% of patients experience side effects with tazarotene, such as pruritus, stinging, and burning. Topical corticosteroids can help, which prompted development of a combined product, she noted.

She referred to a phase 2 study of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, which compared the fixed combination lotion formulation of tazarotene plus halobetasol propionate to the two components alone. The investigators found almost a 9% rate of treatment success with tazarotene alone, versus about 23% with halobetasol propionate alone and about 43% with the combined product. The combined individual effect of the two drugs was about 32%, so the 43% efficacy of the combined product had an absolute synergistic effect of about 11%, Dr. Stein Gold pointed out.

Two phase 3 trials of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis supported the phase 2 results of the combined lotion formulation (halobetasol 0.01% with tazarotene 0.045%), said Dr. Stein Gold, the first author (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79[2]:287-93). Treatment success was defined as at least a 2-grade Investigator’s Global Assessment score and improvement from baseline and a score of “clear” or “almost clear.” In one of the studies, 36% of those on the combination versus 7% of those on the vehicle met this endpoint at week 8, as did 45% versus 13%, respectively, in the second study (P less than .001 for both studies).

Patients also had less itching, drying, and stinging than typically seen with tazarotene alone, Dr. Stein Gold said. In the studies, contact dermatitis was the most common side effect associated with treatment, reported in 6.3%

Dr. Stein Gold has received research support from Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, and Foamix. She has been a consultant for Sol-gel, Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, Foamix, Promis, Anacor, and Medimetriks. She has been on the speakers bureau of Galderma, Leo, Valeant, Novartis, Celgene, and Allergan. She has been a member of scientific advisory boards for Galderma, Leo, Novan, Valeant, Dermira, Novartis, Celgene, Allergan, Foamix, and Promius.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.

MADRID – In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitus with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the monoclonal antibody dupilumab is effective for shrinking the polyps, improving symptoms, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroids and surgery, according to results of two phase 3 studies reported together at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Dupilumab improved all of the disease components, and the improvement was observed in most of them at the first assessment,” reported Jorge F. Máspero, MD, research director, Fundacion Cidea, Buenos Aires.

The data were drawn from multicenter phase 3 trials called LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52. Both included stratifications for asthma and for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (ERD), which are common comorbidities. Findings of the two studies were published together just prior to Dr. Máspero’s presentation at the ERS (Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1).

For the coprimary end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score (NSP), the reductions were 2.06 and 1.8 at 24 weeks from baseline (both P less than .0001) in SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, respectively. For the nasal congestion or obstruction score, another primary end point, the reductions were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively (both P less than .0001).

There were also major improvements at week 24 on secondary end points, including the Lund-McKay CT score for staging of CRSwNP (P less than .0001), total symptom score (P less than .0001), the UPSIT test for smell (P less than .0001), and SNOT-22 (P less than .0001), a quality of life instrument specific for nasal and sinus diseases.

When these outcomes were graphed, curves for the dupilumab and placebo arms had already separated by 4 weeks, “and then we see the dupilumab patients keep getting better over the course of follow-up, and the effect was seen regardless of comorbidities,” said Dr. Máspero, referring to concomitant asthma or ERD.

The SINUS-24 trial randomly assigned 276 CRSwNP patients to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo, each given subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The SINUS-52 trial, which randomized 448 patients, included the same two arms plus a third arm in which patients also received 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then 300 mg every month for an additional 26 weeks.

In a pooled analysis of these trials, patients randomized to dupilumab had a 78% reduction in likelihood of receiving systemic corticosteroids and a 79% reduction in being referred for surgery relative to placebo, Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-4, IL-5, and IL-13, was well tolerated. Among the most common adverse events, there were lower rates of headache (9% vs. 7%), epistaxis (7% vs. 6%), and injection-site erythema (8% vs. 6%) in the dupilumab and placebo arms, respectively, but the rate of serious adverse events (6% vs. 3%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5% vs. 3%) were only slightly higher in the active treatment group.

Both trials, which required a bilateral baseline NPS score of 5.0 for entry, recruited a population with relatively severe CRSwNP, according to Dr. Máspero. Of the 724 patients, 204 had ERD.

A restored sense of smell was one of the contributors to an improvement in quality of life.

“The sense of smell improves very quickly after starting dupilumab. Patients reported results within 2 weeks, and there was an almost complete lack of improvement in the placebo group,” Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab is already indicated for the treatment of CRSwNP, but this study confirms a major effect on polyp size, sinus congestion, and symptoms irrespective of the presence of common comorbidities affecting the airways, Dr. Máspero said.

Dr. Maspero reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: (Bachert C et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1.

MADRID – In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitus with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the monoclonal antibody dupilumab is effective for shrinking the polyps, improving symptoms, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroids and surgery, according to results of two phase 3 studies reported together at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Dupilumab improved all of the disease components, and the improvement was observed in most of them at the first assessment,” reported Jorge F. Máspero, MD, research director, Fundacion Cidea, Buenos Aires.

The data were drawn from multicenter phase 3 trials called LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52. Both included stratifications for asthma and for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (ERD), which are common comorbidities. Findings of the two studies were published together just prior to Dr. Máspero’s presentation at the ERS (Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1).

For the coprimary end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score (NSP), the reductions were 2.06 and 1.8 at 24 weeks from baseline (both P less than .0001) in SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, respectively. For the nasal congestion or obstruction score, another primary end point, the reductions were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively (both P less than .0001).

There were also major improvements at week 24 on secondary end points, including the Lund-McKay CT score for staging of CRSwNP (P less than .0001), total symptom score (P less than .0001), the UPSIT test for smell (P less than .0001), and SNOT-22 (P less than .0001), a quality of life instrument specific for nasal and sinus diseases.

When these outcomes were graphed, curves for the dupilumab and placebo arms had already separated by 4 weeks, “and then we see the dupilumab patients keep getting better over the course of follow-up, and the effect was seen regardless of comorbidities,” said Dr. Máspero, referring to concomitant asthma or ERD.

The SINUS-24 trial randomly assigned 276 CRSwNP patients to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo, each given subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The SINUS-52 trial, which randomized 448 patients, included the same two arms plus a third arm in which patients also received 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then 300 mg every month for an additional 26 weeks.

In a pooled analysis of these trials, patients randomized to dupilumab had a 78% reduction in likelihood of receiving systemic corticosteroids and a 79% reduction in being referred for surgery relative to placebo, Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-4, IL-5, and IL-13, was well tolerated. Among the most common adverse events, there were lower rates of headache (9% vs. 7%), epistaxis (7% vs. 6%), and injection-site erythema (8% vs. 6%) in the dupilumab and placebo arms, respectively, but the rate of serious adverse events (6% vs. 3%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5% vs. 3%) were only slightly higher in the active treatment group.

Both trials, which required a bilateral baseline NPS score of 5.0 for entry, recruited a population with relatively severe CRSwNP, according to Dr. Máspero. Of the 724 patients, 204 had ERD.

A restored sense of smell was one of the contributors to an improvement in quality of life.

“The sense of smell improves very quickly after starting dupilumab. Patients reported results within 2 weeks, and there was an almost complete lack of improvement in the placebo group,” Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab is already indicated for the treatment of CRSwNP, but this study confirms a major effect on polyp size, sinus congestion, and symptoms irrespective of the presence of common comorbidities affecting the airways, Dr. Máspero said.

Dr. Maspero reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: (Bachert C et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1.

MADRID – In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitus with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the monoclonal antibody dupilumab is effective for shrinking the polyps, improving symptoms, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroids and surgery, according to results of two phase 3 studies reported together at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Dupilumab improved all of the disease components, and the improvement was observed in most of them at the first assessment,” reported Jorge F. Máspero, MD, research director, Fundacion Cidea, Buenos Aires.

The data were drawn from multicenter phase 3 trials called LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52. Both included stratifications for asthma and for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (ERD), which are common comorbidities. Findings of the two studies were published together just prior to Dr. Máspero’s presentation at the ERS (Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1).

For the coprimary end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score (NSP), the reductions were 2.06 and 1.8 at 24 weeks from baseline (both P less than .0001) in SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, respectively. For the nasal congestion or obstruction score, another primary end point, the reductions were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively (both P less than .0001).

There were also major improvements at week 24 on secondary end points, including the Lund-McKay CT score for staging of CRSwNP (P less than .0001), total symptom score (P less than .0001), the UPSIT test for smell (P less than .0001), and SNOT-22 (P less than .0001), a quality of life instrument specific for nasal and sinus diseases.

When these outcomes were graphed, curves for the dupilumab and placebo arms had already separated by 4 weeks, “and then we see the dupilumab patients keep getting better over the course of follow-up, and the effect was seen regardless of comorbidities,” said Dr. Máspero, referring to concomitant asthma or ERD.

The SINUS-24 trial randomly assigned 276 CRSwNP patients to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo, each given subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The SINUS-52 trial, which randomized 448 patients, included the same two arms plus a third arm in which patients also received 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then 300 mg every month for an additional 26 weeks.

In a pooled analysis of these trials, patients randomized to dupilumab had a 78% reduction in likelihood of receiving systemic corticosteroids and a 79% reduction in being referred for surgery relative to placebo, Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-4, IL-5, and IL-13, was well tolerated. Among the most common adverse events, there were lower rates of headache (9% vs. 7%), epistaxis (7% vs. 6%), and injection-site erythema (8% vs. 6%) in the dupilumab and placebo arms, respectively, but the rate of serious adverse events (6% vs. 3%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5% vs. 3%) were only slightly higher in the active treatment group.

Both trials, which required a bilateral baseline NPS score of 5.0 for entry, recruited a population with relatively severe CRSwNP, according to Dr. Máspero. Of the 724 patients, 204 had ERD.

A restored sense of smell was one of the contributors to an improvement in quality of life.

“The sense of smell improves very quickly after starting dupilumab. Patients reported results within 2 weeks, and there was an almost complete lack of improvement in the placebo group,” Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab is already indicated for the treatment of CRSwNP, but this study confirms a major effect on polyp size, sinus congestion, and symptoms irrespective of the presence of common comorbidities affecting the airways, Dr. Máspero said.

Dr. Maspero reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: (Bachert C et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1.

BARCELONA – Checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab led to a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, improvement in overall survival, compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 CheckMate 459 study.

Median overall survival (OS), the primary study endpoint, was 16.4 months in 371 patients randomized to receive the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, and 14.7 months in 372 patients who received the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib – the current standard for advanced HCC therapy (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0752), Thomas Yau, MD, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The median OS seen with nivolumab is the longest ever reported in a first-line phase 3 HCC trial, but the difference between the arms did not meet the predefined threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.84 and P = .419). However, clinical benefit was observed across predefined subgroups of patients, including those with hepatitis infection and those with vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread, said Dr. Yau of the University of Hong Kong.

The overall response rates (ORR) were 15% and 7% in the nivolumab and sorafenib arms, with 14 and 5 patients in each group experiencing a complete response (CR), respectively, he said.

At 12 and 24 months, the OS rates in the groups were 59.7% vs. 55.1%, and 36.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the groups, at 3.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, and analysis by baseline tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression showed that ORR was 28% vs. 9% with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater in the groups, respectively, and 12% vs. 7% among those with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Additionally, nivolumab had a more tolerable safety profile; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22% and 49% of patients in the groups, respectively, and led to discontinuation in 4% and 8%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yau said.

Participants in the multicenter study were systemic therapy–naive adults with advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or oral sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, and were followed for at least 22.8 months.

“These results are important in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as there have been no significant advances over sorafenib in the first-line setting in more than a decade,” Dr. Yau said in an ESMO press release. “HCC is often diagnosed in the advanced stage, where effective treatment options are limited. The encouraging efficacy and favorable safety profile seen with nivolumab demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with this aggressive cancer.”

He further noted that the OS benefit seen in this study is “particularly impactful considering the high frequency of subsequent use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, in the sorafenib arm,” and that the OS impact is bolstered by patient-reported outcomes suggesting improved quality of life in the nivolumab arm.

Nevertheless, the fact that CheckMate 459 did not meet its primary OS endpoint means the findings are unlikely to change the current standard of care, according to Angela Lamarca, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist and honorary senior lecturer at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester (England).

She added, however, that the findings do underscore a potential role for immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC and noted that the clinically meaningful improvement in response rates with nivolumab, along with the checkpoint inhibitor’s favorable safety profile in this study, raise the possibility of its selection in this setting.

“In a hypothetical scenario in which both options ... were available and reimbursed, and if quality of life was shown to be better with nivolumab ... clinicians and patients may favor the option with a more tolerable safety profile,” she said in the press release.

She added, however, that at this point conclusions should be made cautiously and the high cost of immunotherapy should be considered.

Dr. Lamarca also highlighted the finding that patients with high PD-L1 expression had an increased response rate only in the nivolumab arm. This suggests a potential role for PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced HCC, but more research is needed to better understand how to select patients for immunotherapy, she said, adding that the lack of a reliable biomarker may have contributed to the study’s failure to show improved OS with nivolumab.

“In addition, the study design with a ‘high’ predefined threshold of statistical significance is generating confusion in the community, with potentially beneficial therapies generating statistically negative studies,” she noted.

CheckMate 459 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Yau is an advisor and/or consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and reported honoraria from the company to his institution. Dr. Lamarca reported honoraria, consultation fees, travel funding, and/or education funding from Eisai, Nutricia, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Delcath, Novartis, and Mylan, as well as participation in company-sponsored speaker bureaus for Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Incyte.

SOURCE: Yau T et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA38-PR
 

BARCELONA – Checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab led to a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, improvement in overall survival, compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 CheckMate 459 study.

Median overall survival (OS), the primary study endpoint, was 16.4 months in 371 patients randomized to receive the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, and 14.7 months in 372 patients who received the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib – the current standard for advanced HCC therapy (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0752), Thomas Yau, MD, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The median OS seen with nivolumab is the longest ever reported in a first-line phase 3 HCC trial, but the difference between the arms did not meet the predefined threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.84 and P = .419). However, clinical benefit was observed across predefined subgroups of patients, including those with hepatitis infection and those with vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread, said Dr. Yau of the University of Hong Kong.

The overall response rates (ORR) were 15% and 7% in the nivolumab and sorafenib arms, with 14 and 5 patients in each group experiencing a complete response (CR), respectively, he said.

At 12 and 24 months, the OS rates in the groups were 59.7% vs. 55.1%, and 36.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the groups, at 3.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, and analysis by baseline tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression showed that ORR was 28% vs. 9% with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater in the groups, respectively, and 12% vs. 7% among those with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Additionally, nivolumab had a more tolerable safety profile; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22% and 49% of patients in the groups, respectively, and led to discontinuation in 4% and 8%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yau said.

Participants in the multicenter study were systemic therapy–naive adults with advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or oral sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, and were followed for at least 22.8 months.

“These results are important in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as there have been no significant advances over sorafenib in the first-line setting in more than a decade,” Dr. Yau said in an ESMO press release. “HCC is often diagnosed in the advanced stage, where effective treatment options are limited. The encouraging efficacy and favorable safety profile seen with nivolumab demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with this aggressive cancer.”

He further noted that the OS benefit seen in this study is “particularly impactful considering the high frequency of subsequent use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, in the sorafenib arm,” and that the OS impact is bolstered by patient-reported outcomes suggesting improved quality of life in the nivolumab arm.

Nevertheless, the fact that CheckMate 459 did not meet its primary OS endpoint means the findings are unlikely to change the current standard of care, according to Angela Lamarca, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist and honorary senior lecturer at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester (England).

She added, however, that the findings do underscore a potential role for immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC and noted that the clinically meaningful improvement in response rates with nivolumab, along with the checkpoint inhibitor’s favorable safety profile in this study, raise the possibility of its selection in this setting.

“In a hypothetical scenario in which both options ... were available and reimbursed, and if quality of life was shown to be better with nivolumab ... clinicians and patients may favor the option with a more tolerable safety profile,” she said in the press release.

She added, however, that at this point conclusions should be made cautiously and the high cost of immunotherapy should be considered.

Dr. Lamarca also highlighted the finding that patients with high PD-L1 expression had an increased response rate only in the nivolumab arm. This suggests a potential role for PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced HCC, but more research is needed to better understand how to select patients for immunotherapy, she said, adding that the lack of a reliable biomarker may have contributed to the study’s failure to show improved OS with nivolumab.

“In addition, the study design with a ‘high’ predefined threshold of statistical significance is generating confusion in the community, with potentially beneficial therapies generating statistically negative studies,” she noted.

CheckMate 459 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Yau is an advisor and/or consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and reported honoraria from the company to his institution. Dr. Lamarca reported honoraria, consultation fees, travel funding, and/or education funding from Eisai, Nutricia, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Delcath, Novartis, and Mylan, as well as participation in company-sponsored speaker bureaus for Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Incyte.

SOURCE: Yau T et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA38-PR
 

BARCELONA – Checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab led to a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, improvement in overall survival, compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 CheckMate 459 study.

Median overall survival (OS), the primary study endpoint, was 16.4 months in 371 patients randomized to receive the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, and 14.7 months in 372 patients who received the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib – the current standard for advanced HCC therapy (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0752), Thomas Yau, MD, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The median OS seen with nivolumab is the longest ever reported in a first-line phase 3 HCC trial, but the difference between the arms did not meet the predefined threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.84 and P = .419). However, clinical benefit was observed across predefined subgroups of patients, including those with hepatitis infection and those with vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread, said Dr. Yau of the University of Hong Kong.

The overall response rates (ORR) were 15% and 7% in the nivolumab and sorafenib arms, with 14 and 5 patients in each group experiencing a complete response (CR), respectively, he said.

At 12 and 24 months, the OS rates in the groups were 59.7% vs. 55.1%, and 36.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the groups, at 3.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, and analysis by baseline tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression showed that ORR was 28% vs. 9% with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater in the groups, respectively, and 12% vs. 7% among those with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Additionally, nivolumab had a more tolerable safety profile; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22% and 49% of patients in the groups, respectively, and led to discontinuation in 4% and 8%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yau said.

Participants in the multicenter study were systemic therapy–naive adults with advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or oral sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, and were followed for at least 22.8 months.

“These results are important in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as there have been no significant advances over sorafenib in the first-line setting in more than a decade,” Dr. Yau said in an ESMO press release. “HCC is often diagnosed in the advanced stage, where effective treatment options are limited. The encouraging efficacy and favorable safety profile seen with nivolumab demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with this aggressive cancer.”

He further noted that the OS benefit seen in this study is “particularly impactful considering the high frequency of subsequent use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, in the sorafenib arm,” and that the OS impact is bolstered by patient-reported outcomes suggesting improved quality of life in the nivolumab arm.

Nevertheless, the fact that CheckMate 459 did not meet its primary OS endpoint means the findings are unlikely to change the current standard of care, according to Angela Lamarca, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist and honorary senior lecturer at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester (England).

She added, however, that the findings do underscore a potential role for immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC and noted that the clinically meaningful improvement in response rates with nivolumab, along with the checkpoint inhibitor’s favorable safety profile in this study, raise the possibility of its selection in this setting.

“In a hypothetical scenario in which both options ... were available and reimbursed, and if quality of life was shown to be better with nivolumab ... clinicians and patients may favor the option with a more tolerable safety profile,” she said in the press release.

She added, however, that at this point conclusions should be made cautiously and the high cost of immunotherapy should be considered.

Dr. Lamarca also highlighted the finding that patients with high PD-L1 expression had an increased response rate only in the nivolumab arm. This suggests a potential role for PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced HCC, but more research is needed to better understand how to select patients for immunotherapy, she said, adding that the lack of a reliable biomarker may have contributed to the study’s failure to show improved OS with nivolumab.

“In addition, the study design with a ‘high’ predefined threshold of statistical significance is generating confusion in the community, with potentially beneficial therapies generating statistically negative studies,” she noted.

CheckMate 459 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Yau is an advisor and/or consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and reported honoraria from the company to his institution. Dr. Lamarca reported honoraria, consultation fees, travel funding, and/or education funding from Eisai, Nutricia, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Delcath, Novartis, and Mylan, as well as participation in company-sponsored speaker bureaus for Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Incyte.

SOURCE: Yau T et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA38-PR
 

MADRID – The serious adverse events faced by asthma patients taking maintenance or rescue oral corticosteroids (OCS) might be avoidable if data from a Dutch study presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society are representative of practice elsewhere.

“The main message from our study is that OCS overuse is common and unnecessary in the majority of asthma patients,” reported Katrien A.B. Eger, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

In this study, 5,002 patients on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), defined as at least 500 mcg/day, were identified in a pharmacy database in the Netherlands. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine how many had severe asthma and had received rescue or maintenance OCS in the past year.

Drawing from the pharmacy database, it could be determined that 29% of the 2,312 patients who responded to the questionnaire were taking harmfully high doses of OCS as well as high doses of ICS. For this study, harmful exposure was defined as a cumulative intake of 420 mg of prednisone-equivalent OCS over a 1-year period. The median cumulative 1-year exposure, according to Dr. Eger, was 750 mg of prednisone equivalent.

In this population, the investigators then calculated ICS medication adherence based on prescription refills. In addition, a subset of this population was evaluated for inhaler technique.

On the basis of these calculations, 47.4% of patients with harmful OCS exposure were found not to be adherent to their prescribed ICS. Of those who were adherent, 53.9% were found not be taking their inhaled steroids appropriately,

When these numbers are put together, the data suggest “78.1% of high OCS users are either nonadherent or using poor inhalation techniques, which means there is a big potential for treatment optimization,” Dr. Eger said.

Yet even among the 21.9% who were adherent and using good inhaler technique, identifying a group who presumably require OCS for exacerbations, the study found that only 46.1% had been prescribed a biologic, which Dr. Eger considers an important steroid-sparing option. She conceded that many of those not on a biologic might not be candidates, but she believes this is another missed opportunity for reducing OCS exposure.

“In the Netherlands, we have very good access to health care, and biologics are available to anyone who needs them,” said Dr. Eger, explaining that access to these drugs is not a barrier.

The evidence overall is that not enough is being done to ensure that asthma patients are being protected from the risks of OCS, according to Dr. Eger. Citing evidence that adverse events associated with OCS begin with a cumulative lifetime prednisone-equivalent exposure of only 500 mg, she believes that clinicians should be more aggressive in intervening.

“We know that there are both acute and chronic complications associated with OCS that involve a range of organ systems,” Dr. Eger said. She listed osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and adrenal insufficiency as examples. Rescue OCS, even if used sparingly, can drive risk of OCS complications attributable to the importance of cumulative exposure.

In the session where these data were presented, the moderator, Guy Brusselle, MD, professor of asthma and immunology, Ghent (Belgium) University, labeled them “important.” However, he quibbled with Dr. Eger’s assertion that biologics represent a major opportunity to reduce OCS exposure.

“By suggesting that biologics are not being used often enough, there is an assumption that all of these patients have type 2 inflammatory asthma,” Dr. Brusselle said. “I think it makes more sense to emphasize steroid-sparing strategies, not just biologics.”

Dr. Eger did not disagree, but she emphasized that steroid-sparing alternatives are just one strategy to reduce OCS exposure, and ensuring that patients are adherent to prescribed ICS therapies and are using them correctly might have an even greater impact.

Dr. Eger reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – The serious adverse events faced by asthma patients taking maintenance or rescue oral corticosteroids (OCS) might be avoidable if data from a Dutch study presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society are representative of practice elsewhere.

“The main message from our study is that OCS overuse is common and unnecessary in the majority of asthma patients,” reported Katrien A.B. Eger, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

In this study, 5,002 patients on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), defined as at least 500 mcg/day, were identified in a pharmacy database in the Netherlands. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine how many had severe asthma and had received rescue or maintenance OCS in the past year.

Drawing from the pharmacy database, it could be determined that 29% of the 2,312 patients who responded to the questionnaire were taking harmfully high doses of OCS as well as high doses of ICS. For this study, harmful exposure was defined as a cumulative intake of 420 mg of prednisone-equivalent OCS over a 1-year period. The median cumulative 1-year exposure, according to Dr. Eger, was 750 mg of prednisone equivalent.

In this population, the investigators then calculated ICS medication adherence based on prescription refills. In addition, a subset of this population was evaluated for inhaler technique.

On the basis of these calculations, 47.4% of patients with harmful OCS exposure were found not to be adherent to their prescribed ICS. Of those who were adherent, 53.9% were found not be taking their inhaled steroids appropriately,

When these numbers are put together, the data suggest “78.1% of high OCS users are either nonadherent or using poor inhalation techniques, which means there is a big potential for treatment optimization,” Dr. Eger said.

Yet even among the 21.9% who were adherent and using good inhaler technique, identifying a group who presumably require OCS for exacerbations, the study found that only 46.1% had been prescribed a biologic, which Dr. Eger considers an important steroid-sparing option. She conceded that many of those not on a biologic might not be candidates, but she believes this is another missed opportunity for reducing OCS exposure.

“In the Netherlands, we have very good access to health care, and biologics are available to anyone who needs them,” said Dr. Eger, explaining that access to these drugs is not a barrier.

The evidence overall is that not enough is being done to ensure that asthma patients are being protected from the risks of OCS, according to Dr. Eger. Citing evidence that adverse events associated with OCS begin with a cumulative lifetime prednisone-equivalent exposure of only 500 mg, she believes that clinicians should be more aggressive in intervening.

“We know that there are both acute and chronic complications associated with OCS that involve a range of organ systems,” Dr. Eger said. She listed osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and adrenal insufficiency as examples. Rescue OCS, even if used sparingly, can drive risk of OCS complications attributable to the importance of cumulative exposure.

In the session where these data were presented, the moderator, Guy Brusselle, MD, professor of asthma and immunology, Ghent (Belgium) University, labeled them “important.” However, he quibbled with Dr. Eger’s assertion that biologics represent a major opportunity to reduce OCS exposure.

“By suggesting that biologics are not being used often enough, there is an assumption that all of these patients have type 2 inflammatory asthma,” Dr. Brusselle said. “I think it makes more sense to emphasize steroid-sparing strategies, not just biologics.”

Dr. Eger did not disagree, but she emphasized that steroid-sparing alternatives are just one strategy to reduce OCS exposure, and ensuring that patients are adherent to prescribed ICS therapies and are using them correctly might have an even greater impact.

Dr. Eger reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – The serious adverse events faced by asthma patients taking maintenance or rescue oral corticosteroids (OCS) might be avoidable if data from a Dutch study presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society are representative of practice elsewhere.

“The main message from our study is that OCS overuse is common and unnecessary in the majority of asthma patients,” reported Katrien A.B. Eger, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

In this study, 5,002 patients on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), defined as at least 500 mcg/day, were identified in a pharmacy database in the Netherlands. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine how many had severe asthma and had received rescue or maintenance OCS in the past year.

Drawing from the pharmacy database, it could be determined that 29% of the 2,312 patients who responded to the questionnaire were taking harmfully high doses of OCS as well as high doses of ICS. For this study, harmful exposure was defined as a cumulative intake of 420 mg of prednisone-equivalent OCS over a 1-year period. The median cumulative 1-year exposure, according to Dr. Eger, was 750 mg of prednisone equivalent.

In this population, the investigators then calculated ICS medication adherence based on prescription refills. In addition, a subset of this population was evaluated for inhaler technique.

On the basis of these calculations, 47.4% of patients with harmful OCS exposure were found not to be adherent to their prescribed ICS. Of those who were adherent, 53.9% were found not be taking their inhaled steroids appropriately,

When these numbers are put together, the data suggest “78.1% of high OCS users are either nonadherent or using poor inhalation techniques, which means there is a big potential for treatment optimization,” Dr. Eger said.

Yet even among the 21.9% who were adherent and using good inhaler technique, identifying a group who presumably require OCS for exacerbations, the study found that only 46.1% had been prescribed a biologic, which Dr. Eger considers an important steroid-sparing option. She conceded that many of those not on a biologic might not be candidates, but she believes this is another missed opportunity for reducing OCS exposure.

“In the Netherlands, we have very good access to health care, and biologics are available to anyone who needs them,” said Dr. Eger, explaining that access to these drugs is not a barrier.

The evidence overall is that not enough is being done to ensure that asthma patients are being protected from the risks of OCS, according to Dr. Eger. Citing evidence that adverse events associated with OCS begin with a cumulative lifetime prednisone-equivalent exposure of only 500 mg, she believes that clinicians should be more aggressive in intervening.

“We know that there are both acute and chronic complications associated with OCS that involve a range of organ systems,” Dr. Eger said. She listed osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and adrenal insufficiency as examples. Rescue OCS, even if used sparingly, can drive risk of OCS complications attributable to the importance of cumulative exposure.

In the session where these data were presented, the moderator, Guy Brusselle, MD, professor of asthma and immunology, Ghent (Belgium) University, labeled them “important.” However, he quibbled with Dr. Eger’s assertion that biologics represent a major opportunity to reduce OCS exposure.

“By suggesting that biologics are not being used often enough, there is an assumption that all of these patients have type 2 inflammatory asthma,” Dr. Brusselle said. “I think it makes more sense to emphasize steroid-sparing strategies, not just biologics.”

Dr. Eger did not disagree, but she emphasized that steroid-sparing alternatives are just one strategy to reduce OCS exposure, and ensuring that patients are adherent to prescribed ICS therapies and are using them correctly might have an even greater impact.

Dr. Eger reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug combination, Descovy, for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The decision, backing the earlier recommendation of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, was based upon results from DISCOVER, a pivotal, multiyear, global phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25-mg tablets for PrEP, compared with Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300-mg tablets).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

DISCOVER included more than 5,300 adult cisgender men who have sex with men or transgender women who have sex with men.

In the trial, Descovy achieved noninferiority to Truvada.

Descovy has a Boxed Warning in its U.S. product label regarding the risk of posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B, according to the company.

The Descovy label also includes a Boxed Warning regarding the risk of drug resistance with PrEP use in undiagnosed early HIV-1 infection. The effectiveness of Descovy for PrEP in individuals at risk of HIV-1 from receptive vaginal sex was not tested, and thus cisgender women at risk for infection from vaginal sex were not included in the population for which the drug was approved.

The Descovy label and safety information is available here.

The FDA version of the announcement is available here.

[email protected]

Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug combination, Descovy, for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The decision, backing the earlier recommendation of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, was based upon results from DISCOVER, a pivotal, multiyear, global phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25-mg tablets for PrEP, compared with Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300-mg tablets).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

DISCOVER included more than 5,300 adult cisgender men who have sex with men or transgender women who have sex with men.

In the trial, Descovy achieved noninferiority to Truvada.

Descovy has a Boxed Warning in its U.S. product label regarding the risk of posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B, according to the company.

The Descovy label also includes a Boxed Warning regarding the risk of drug resistance with PrEP use in undiagnosed early HIV-1 infection. The effectiveness of Descovy for PrEP in individuals at risk of HIV-1 from receptive vaginal sex was not tested, and thus cisgender women at risk for infection from vaginal sex were not included in the population for which the drug was approved.

The Descovy label and safety information is available here.

The FDA version of the announcement is available here.

[email protected]

Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug combination, Descovy, for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The decision, backing the earlier recommendation of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, was based upon results from DISCOVER, a pivotal, multiyear, global phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25-mg tablets for PrEP, compared with Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300-mg tablets).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

DISCOVER included more than 5,300 adult cisgender men who have sex with men or transgender women who have sex with men.

In the trial, Descovy achieved noninferiority to Truvada.

Descovy has a Boxed Warning in its U.S. product label regarding the risk of posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B, according to the company.

The Descovy label also includes a Boxed Warning regarding the risk of drug resistance with PrEP use in undiagnosed early HIV-1 infection. The effectiveness of Descovy for PrEP in individuals at risk of HIV-1 from receptive vaginal sex was not tested, and thus cisgender women at risk for infection from vaginal sex were not included in the population for which the drug was approved.

The Descovy label and safety information is available here.

The FDA version of the announcement is available here.

[email protected]