Pharmacology

An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

grandeduc/Thinkstock

The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.

“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.

This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.

“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”

Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.

In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.

The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.

Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.

The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.

All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.

Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.

SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.

An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

grandeduc/Thinkstock

The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.

“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.

This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.

“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”

Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.

In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.

The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.

Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.

The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.

All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.

Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.

SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.

An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

grandeduc/Thinkstock

The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.

“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.

This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.

“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”

Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.

In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.

The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.

Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.

The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.

All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.

Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.

SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Baqsimi nasal powder, the first glucagon therapy approved for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia that is administrable without an injection, in patients aged 4 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.

The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.

The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.

“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Baqsimi nasal powder, the first glucagon therapy approved for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia that is administrable without an injection, in patients aged 4 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.

The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.

The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.

“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Baqsimi nasal powder, the first glucagon therapy approved for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia that is administrable without an injection, in patients aged 4 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.

The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.

The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.

“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Testosterone replacement therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older men, particularly during the first 2 years of use, a study in the American Journal of Medicine has found.

Simone Y. Loo of the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and colleagues looked at a cohort of 15,401 men aged 45 years or older with low testosterone levels, of whom 4,485 (29.1%) were prescribed testosterone replacement therapy on at least one occasion during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. They saw that individuals who were currently using testosterone replacement therapy had a 21% increase in the risk of the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or myocardial infarction, compared with those who had not had hormone therapy.

In the first 6 months to 2 years after initiation of continuous treatment, the risk was even higher – at 35% – and was particularly high in individuals aged 45-59 years (at 44%).

However, the study also noted a significant 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in individuals currently using testosterone replacement therapy and a significant 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality in past users, compared with nonusers.

Concerns about the safety of testosterone replacement therapy had previously been kindled by the outcomes of the Testosterone in Older Men trial, which was stopped early because of the higher number of cardiovascular events in the treatment group. However, other randomized controlled trials have not seen that effect, the authors said.

They noted that the protective effect of current hormone replacement use on mortality was surprising, but suggested it could be the result of reverse causality, “in which physicians may discontinue TRT based on perceived deterioration of health or imminent death, because TRT is not a vital medication.”

“Moreover, TRT may be less frequently initiated among men with a higher baseline risk of mortality, particularly in the elderly, and those who received TRT may have been healthier overall, compared with their untreated counterparts,” the authors wrote.

Despite this, they suggested that larger observational studies were still needed to investigate the potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy. In the meantime, they advised that potential harms should be weighed against perceived benefits and caution be applied to prescribing.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Loo S et al. Am J Med 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.022.

Testosterone replacement therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older men, particularly during the first 2 years of use, a study in the American Journal of Medicine has found.

Simone Y. Loo of the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and colleagues looked at a cohort of 15,401 men aged 45 years or older with low testosterone levels, of whom 4,485 (29.1%) were prescribed testosterone replacement therapy on at least one occasion during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. They saw that individuals who were currently using testosterone replacement therapy had a 21% increase in the risk of the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or myocardial infarction, compared with those who had not had hormone therapy.

In the first 6 months to 2 years after initiation of continuous treatment, the risk was even higher – at 35% – and was particularly high in individuals aged 45-59 years (at 44%).

However, the study also noted a significant 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in individuals currently using testosterone replacement therapy and a significant 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality in past users, compared with nonusers.

Concerns about the safety of testosterone replacement therapy had previously been kindled by the outcomes of the Testosterone in Older Men trial, which was stopped early because of the higher number of cardiovascular events in the treatment group. However, other randomized controlled trials have not seen that effect, the authors said.

They noted that the protective effect of current hormone replacement use on mortality was surprising, but suggested it could be the result of reverse causality, “in which physicians may discontinue TRT based on perceived deterioration of health or imminent death, because TRT is not a vital medication.”

“Moreover, TRT may be less frequently initiated among men with a higher baseline risk of mortality, particularly in the elderly, and those who received TRT may have been healthier overall, compared with their untreated counterparts,” the authors wrote.

Despite this, they suggested that larger observational studies were still needed to investigate the potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy. In the meantime, they advised that potential harms should be weighed against perceived benefits and caution be applied to prescribing.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Loo S et al. Am J Med 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.022.

Testosterone replacement therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older men, particularly during the first 2 years of use, a study in the American Journal of Medicine has found.

Simone Y. Loo of the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and colleagues looked at a cohort of 15,401 men aged 45 years or older with low testosterone levels, of whom 4,485 (29.1%) were prescribed testosterone replacement therapy on at least one occasion during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. They saw that individuals who were currently using testosterone replacement therapy had a 21% increase in the risk of the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or myocardial infarction, compared with those who had not had hormone therapy.

In the first 6 months to 2 years after initiation of continuous treatment, the risk was even higher – at 35% – and was particularly high in individuals aged 45-59 years (at 44%).

However, the study also noted a significant 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in individuals currently using testosterone replacement therapy and a significant 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality in past users, compared with nonusers.

Concerns about the safety of testosterone replacement therapy had previously been kindled by the outcomes of the Testosterone in Older Men trial, which was stopped early because of the higher number of cardiovascular events in the treatment group. However, other randomized controlled trials have not seen that effect, the authors said.

They noted that the protective effect of current hormone replacement use on mortality was surprising, but suggested it could be the result of reverse causality, “in which physicians may discontinue TRT based on perceived deterioration of health or imminent death, because TRT is not a vital medication.”

“Moreover, TRT may be less frequently initiated among men with a higher baseline risk of mortality, particularly in the elderly, and those who received TRT may have been healthier overall, compared with their untreated counterparts,” the authors wrote.

Despite this, they suggested that larger observational studies were still needed to investigate the potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy. In the meantime, they advised that potential harms should be weighed against perceived benefits and caution be applied to prescribing.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Loo S et al. Am J Med 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.022.

In patients with previously untreated achalasia, peroral endoscopic myotomy had a high procedural success rate as compared to pneumatic dilation, results of a randomized clinical trial show.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) had a success rate exceeding 90%, versus just about 50% for standard balloon dilation in what investigators say is, to their knowledge, the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate POEM as a first-line modality for this esophageal motility disorder.

Reflux esophagitis was the major downside of POEM, according to investigators, who reported the complication in 41% of patients at a 2-year follow-up, as compared to just 7% of patients undergoing the standard balloon dilation.

Nevertheless, there were no serious adverse events among 63 POEM-treated patients, while one patient out of 63 undergoing pneumatic dilation had a perforation that required endoscopic closure and hospitalization, according to senior study author Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center.

“These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia,” Dr. Bredenoord and coinvestigators said in a report on the study appearing in JAMA.

While endoscopic pneumatic dilation is the usual treatment for achalasia, POEM has become more commonly used following case series showing high rates of efficacy, according to the authors.

The POEM procedure also offers advantages over laparoscopic Heller myotomy, which is invasive and associated with severe complications, including a transmural perforation rate of 4%-10%, they said in their report.

Their randomized trial included 133 adults with newly diagnosed achalasia enrolled at one of six hospitals in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States.

Patients were randomly assigned to undergo 1-2 pneumatic dilations performed by an endoscopist who had performed at least 20 such procedures in the past, or to a POEM procedure likewise performed by an expert who had already done more than 20 such procedures.

At baseline, patients’ Eckardt symptom scores ranged from 6 to 9 on a scale with 0 indicating the lowest severity, to 12 indicating the highest. The median Eckardt scores were 8 in the POEM group and 7 in the pneumatic dilation group.

Treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score under 3 and no severe complications or retreatment at 2 years, was achieved by 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group, compared with 34 of 63 patients (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group (P less than .001), investigators reported.

Reflux esophagitis was observed in 22 of 54 POEM-treated patients (41%) who underwent endoscopy at a 2-year evaluation, compared with only 2 of 29 patients (7%) who had received the balloon dilation procedure (P = .002). In line with that finding, both reflux symptoms and daily proton pump inhibitor use were more common in the POEM group, investigators said.

However, there were no differences between POEM and pneumatic dilation groups in quality of life and other secondary endpoints, including median barium column height and median integrated relaxation pressure, they reported.

Two serious adverse events related to treatment were seen, according to investigators, including one perforation requiring an endoscopic closure plus antibiotics and hospitalization for 13 days, and one hospital admission for a night because of severe chest pain with no signs of perforation.

“Although POEM is more invasive and requires more technical endoscopic skills, the risk of severe complications was not higher than with pneumatic dilation, especially when performed by experienced endoscopists,” Dr. Bredenoord and coauthors said in their report.

However, these results do not imply that the traditional dilation procedure should be abandoned, they said, as POEM is more invasive, more involved, and more likely to result in reflux esophagitis.

“It seems reasonable to offer both options to treatment-naive patients with achalasia and counsel them to select treatment based on the patient’s characteristics, personal preference, comorbidity, and disease subtype,” they said.

Funding for the study came from Fonds NutsOhra and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Dr. Bredenoord reported disclosures related to Norgine, Laborie, Medtronic, Diversatek, Nutricia, Regeneron, Celgene, Bayer, and Dr. Falk Pharma.

SOURCE: Ponds FA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(2):134-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8859.

In patients with previously untreated achalasia, peroral endoscopic myotomy had a high procedural success rate as compared to pneumatic dilation, results of a randomized clinical trial show.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) had a success rate exceeding 90%, versus just about 50% for standard balloon dilation in what investigators say is, to their knowledge, the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate POEM as a first-line modality for this esophageal motility disorder.

Reflux esophagitis was the major downside of POEM, according to investigators, who reported the complication in 41% of patients at a 2-year follow-up, as compared to just 7% of patients undergoing the standard balloon dilation.

Nevertheless, there were no serious adverse events among 63 POEM-treated patients, while one patient out of 63 undergoing pneumatic dilation had a perforation that required endoscopic closure and hospitalization, according to senior study author Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center.

“These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia,” Dr. Bredenoord and coinvestigators said in a report on the study appearing in JAMA.

While endoscopic pneumatic dilation is the usual treatment for achalasia, POEM has become more commonly used following case series showing high rates of efficacy, according to the authors.

The POEM procedure also offers advantages over laparoscopic Heller myotomy, which is invasive and associated with severe complications, including a transmural perforation rate of 4%-10%, they said in their report.

Their randomized trial included 133 adults with newly diagnosed achalasia enrolled at one of six hospitals in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States.

Patients were randomly assigned to undergo 1-2 pneumatic dilations performed by an endoscopist who had performed at least 20 such procedures in the past, or to a POEM procedure likewise performed by an expert who had already done more than 20 such procedures.

At baseline, patients’ Eckardt symptom scores ranged from 6 to 9 on a scale with 0 indicating the lowest severity, to 12 indicating the highest. The median Eckardt scores were 8 in the POEM group and 7 in the pneumatic dilation group.

Treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score under 3 and no severe complications or retreatment at 2 years, was achieved by 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group, compared with 34 of 63 patients (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group (P less than .001), investigators reported.

Reflux esophagitis was observed in 22 of 54 POEM-treated patients (41%) who underwent endoscopy at a 2-year evaluation, compared with only 2 of 29 patients (7%) who had received the balloon dilation procedure (P = .002). In line with that finding, both reflux symptoms and daily proton pump inhibitor use were more common in the POEM group, investigators said.

However, there were no differences between POEM and pneumatic dilation groups in quality of life and other secondary endpoints, including median barium column height and median integrated relaxation pressure, they reported.

Two serious adverse events related to treatment were seen, according to investigators, including one perforation requiring an endoscopic closure plus antibiotics and hospitalization for 13 days, and one hospital admission for a night because of severe chest pain with no signs of perforation.

“Although POEM is more invasive and requires more technical endoscopic skills, the risk of severe complications was not higher than with pneumatic dilation, especially when performed by experienced endoscopists,” Dr. Bredenoord and coauthors said in their report.

However, these results do not imply that the traditional dilation procedure should be abandoned, they said, as POEM is more invasive, more involved, and more likely to result in reflux esophagitis.

“It seems reasonable to offer both options to treatment-naive patients with achalasia and counsel them to select treatment based on the patient’s characteristics, personal preference, comorbidity, and disease subtype,” they said.

Funding for the study came from Fonds NutsOhra and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Dr. Bredenoord reported disclosures related to Norgine, Laborie, Medtronic, Diversatek, Nutricia, Regeneron, Celgene, Bayer, and Dr. Falk Pharma.

SOURCE: Ponds FA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(2):134-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8859.

In patients with previously untreated achalasia, peroral endoscopic myotomy had a high procedural success rate as compared to pneumatic dilation, results of a randomized clinical trial show.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) had a success rate exceeding 90%, versus just about 50% for standard balloon dilation in what investigators say is, to their knowledge, the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate POEM as a first-line modality for this esophageal motility disorder.

Reflux esophagitis was the major downside of POEM, according to investigators, who reported the complication in 41% of patients at a 2-year follow-up, as compared to just 7% of patients undergoing the standard balloon dilation.

Nevertheless, there were no serious adverse events among 63 POEM-treated patients, while one patient out of 63 undergoing pneumatic dilation had a perforation that required endoscopic closure and hospitalization, according to senior study author Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center.

“These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia,” Dr. Bredenoord and coinvestigators said in a report on the study appearing in JAMA.

While endoscopic pneumatic dilation is the usual treatment for achalasia, POEM has become more commonly used following case series showing high rates of efficacy, according to the authors.

The POEM procedure also offers advantages over laparoscopic Heller myotomy, which is invasive and associated with severe complications, including a transmural perforation rate of 4%-10%, they said in their report.

Their randomized trial included 133 adults with newly diagnosed achalasia enrolled at one of six hospitals in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States.

Patients were randomly assigned to undergo 1-2 pneumatic dilations performed by an endoscopist who had performed at least 20 such procedures in the past, or to a POEM procedure likewise performed by an expert who had already done more than 20 such procedures.

At baseline, patients’ Eckardt symptom scores ranged from 6 to 9 on a scale with 0 indicating the lowest severity, to 12 indicating the highest. The median Eckardt scores were 8 in the POEM group and 7 in the pneumatic dilation group.

Treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score under 3 and no severe complications or retreatment at 2 years, was achieved by 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group, compared with 34 of 63 patients (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group (P less than .001), investigators reported.

Reflux esophagitis was observed in 22 of 54 POEM-treated patients (41%) who underwent endoscopy at a 2-year evaluation, compared with only 2 of 29 patients (7%) who had received the balloon dilation procedure (P = .002). In line with that finding, both reflux symptoms and daily proton pump inhibitor use were more common in the POEM group, investigators said.

However, there were no differences between POEM and pneumatic dilation groups in quality of life and other secondary endpoints, including median barium column height and median integrated relaxation pressure, they reported.

Two serious adverse events related to treatment were seen, according to investigators, including one perforation requiring an endoscopic closure plus antibiotics and hospitalization for 13 days, and one hospital admission for a night because of severe chest pain with no signs of perforation.

“Although POEM is more invasive and requires more technical endoscopic skills, the risk of severe complications was not higher than with pneumatic dilation, especially when performed by experienced endoscopists,” Dr. Bredenoord and coauthors said in their report.

However, these results do not imply that the traditional dilation procedure should be abandoned, they said, as POEM is more invasive, more involved, and more likely to result in reflux esophagitis.

“It seems reasonable to offer both options to treatment-naive patients with achalasia and counsel them to select treatment based on the patient’s characteristics, personal preference, comorbidity, and disease subtype,” they said.

Funding for the study came from Fonds NutsOhra and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Dr. Bredenoord reported disclosures related to Norgine, Laborie, Medtronic, Diversatek, Nutricia, Regeneron, Celgene, Bayer, and Dr. Falk Pharma.

SOURCE: Ponds FA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(2):134-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8859.

The strategy of simultaneously inhibiting proliferation and reactivating apoptosis can eradicate chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a large share of patients, suggest results from the phase 2 CLARITY trial.

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

“Both ibrutinib and venetoclax are active in CLL with improved survival; however, as monotherapies, both currently are given until disease progression,” wrote Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds, England, and his colleagues.

In the single-arm, open-label trial, the investigators treated 53 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL with combination ibrutinib (Imbruvica), a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, and venetoclax (Venclexta), a small molecule inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. The primary endpoint was MRD negativity, defined as presence of fewer than one CLL cell in 10,000 leukocytes, after 12 months of combination therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the combination was highly active, with 53% of patients achieving MRD negativity in the blood and 36% achieving MRD negativity in the marrow.

Most patients, 89%, had a treatment response, and slightly more than half, 51%, achieved a complete remission. With a median 21.1-month follow-up, only a single patient experienced progression and all were still alive.

Adverse effects were generally manageable. Grade 3-4 adverse events of special interest included 34 cases of neutropenia and 1 case of biochemical tumor lysis syndrome that was managed by delaying venetoclax.

“We have demonstrated promising efficacy that indicates potent synergy between ibrutinib and venetoclax for inducing MRD-negative responses with manageable adverse effects,” the investigators wrote. “The observation that a significant proportion of patients experience MRD-negative remission indicates that this combination can be given for a limited period and then stopped after patients achieve a deep remission.”


Whether the combination leads to permanent disease eradication in certain patients is still unclear, the investigators added.

The trial was supported by Bloodwise under the Trials Acceleration Programme, by the National Institute for Health Research Leeds Clinical Research Facility, and by an unrestricted educational grant from Janssen-Cilag and AbbVie. Ibrutinib was provided free of charge by Janssen-Cilag, and venetoclax was provided free of charge by AbbVie. Dr. Hillman reported financial relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, Pharmacyclics, and Gilead Sciences.

SOURCE: Hillmen P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00894.

The strategy of simultaneously inhibiting proliferation and reactivating apoptosis can eradicate chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a large share of patients, suggest results from the phase 2 CLARITY trial.

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

“Both ibrutinib and venetoclax are active in CLL with improved survival; however, as monotherapies, both currently are given until disease progression,” wrote Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds, England, and his colleagues.

In the single-arm, open-label trial, the investigators treated 53 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL with combination ibrutinib (Imbruvica), a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, and venetoclax (Venclexta), a small molecule inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. The primary endpoint was MRD negativity, defined as presence of fewer than one CLL cell in 10,000 leukocytes, after 12 months of combination therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the combination was highly active, with 53% of patients achieving MRD negativity in the blood and 36% achieving MRD negativity in the marrow.

Most patients, 89%, had a treatment response, and slightly more than half, 51%, achieved a complete remission. With a median 21.1-month follow-up, only a single patient experienced progression and all were still alive.

Adverse effects were generally manageable. Grade 3-4 adverse events of special interest included 34 cases of neutropenia and 1 case of biochemical tumor lysis syndrome that was managed by delaying venetoclax.

“We have demonstrated promising efficacy that indicates potent synergy between ibrutinib and venetoclax for inducing MRD-negative responses with manageable adverse effects,” the investigators wrote. “The observation that a significant proportion of patients experience MRD-negative remission indicates that this combination can be given for a limited period and then stopped after patients achieve a deep remission.”


Whether the combination leads to permanent disease eradication in certain patients is still unclear, the investigators added.

The trial was supported by Bloodwise under the Trials Acceleration Programme, by the National Institute for Health Research Leeds Clinical Research Facility, and by an unrestricted educational grant from Janssen-Cilag and AbbVie. Ibrutinib was provided free of charge by Janssen-Cilag, and venetoclax was provided free of charge by AbbVie. Dr. Hillman reported financial relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, Pharmacyclics, and Gilead Sciences.

SOURCE: Hillmen P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00894.

The strategy of simultaneously inhibiting proliferation and reactivating apoptosis can eradicate chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a large share of patients, suggest results from the phase 2 CLARITY trial.

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

“Both ibrutinib and venetoclax are active in CLL with improved survival; however, as monotherapies, both currently are given until disease progression,” wrote Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds, England, and his colleagues.

In the single-arm, open-label trial, the investigators treated 53 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL with combination ibrutinib (Imbruvica), a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, and venetoclax (Venclexta), a small molecule inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. The primary endpoint was MRD negativity, defined as presence of fewer than one CLL cell in 10,000 leukocytes, after 12 months of combination therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the combination was highly active, with 53% of patients achieving MRD negativity in the blood and 36% achieving MRD negativity in the marrow.

Most patients, 89%, had a treatment response, and slightly more than half, 51%, achieved a complete remission. With a median 21.1-month follow-up, only a single patient experienced progression and all were still alive.

Adverse effects were generally manageable. Grade 3-4 adverse events of special interest included 34 cases of neutropenia and 1 case of biochemical tumor lysis syndrome that was managed by delaying venetoclax.

“We have demonstrated promising efficacy that indicates potent synergy between ibrutinib and venetoclax for inducing MRD-negative responses with manageable adverse effects,” the investigators wrote. “The observation that a significant proportion of patients experience MRD-negative remission indicates that this combination can be given for a limited period and then stopped after patients achieve a deep remission.”


Whether the combination leads to permanent disease eradication in certain patients is still unclear, the investigators added.

The trial was supported by Bloodwise under the Trials Acceleration Programme, by the National Institute for Health Research Leeds Clinical Research Facility, and by an unrestricted educational grant from Janssen-Cilag and AbbVie. Ibrutinib was provided free of charge by Janssen-Cilag, and venetoclax was provided free of charge by AbbVie. Dr. Hillman reported financial relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, Pharmacyclics, and Gilead Sciences.

SOURCE: Hillmen P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00894.

BANGKOK – Statin therapy, even when initiated only upon hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, was associated with a striking reduction in the risk of early poststroke symptomatic seizure in a large observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Using propensity-score matching to control for potential confounders, use of a statin during acute stroke management was associated with a “robust” 77% reduction in the risk of developing a symptomatic seizure within 7 days after hospital admission, Soichiro Matsubara, MD, reported at the International Epilepsy Congress.

This is an important finding because early symptomatic seizure (ESS) occurs in 2%-7% of patients following an acute ischemic stroke. Moreover, an Italian meta-analysis concluded that ESS was associated with a 4.4-fold increased risk of developing poststroke epilepsy (Epilepsia. 2016 Aug;57[8]:1205-14), noted Dr. Matsubara, a neurologist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, as well as at Kumamoto (Japan) University.

He presented a study of 2,969 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with no history of epilepsy who were admitted to the Japanese comprehensive stroke center, of whom 2.2% experienced ESS. At physician discretion, 19% of the ESS cohort were on a statin during their acute stroke management, as were 55% of the no-ESS group. Four-fifths of patients on a statin initiated the drug only upon hospital admission.

Strokes tended to be more severe in the ESS group, with a median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 12.5, compared with 4 in the seizure-free patients. A cortical stroke lesion was evident upon imaging in 89% of the ESS group and 55% of no-ESS patients. Among ESS patients, 46% had a cardiometabolic stroke, compared with 34% of the no-ESS cohort. Mean C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts were significantly higher in the ESS cohort as well. Their median hospital length of stay was 25.5 days, versus 18 days in the no-ESS group, Dr. Matsubara said at the congress sponsored by the International League Against Epilepsy.

Of the 76 ESSs that occurred in 66 patients, 37% were focal awareness seizures, 35% were focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 28% were focal impaired awareness seizures.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, stroke subtype, and other potential confounders, statin therapy during acute management of stroke was independently associated with a 56% reduction in the relative risk of ESS. In contrast, a cortical stroke lesion was associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk.

Since this wasn’t a randomized trial of statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara and his coinvestigators felt the need to go further in analyzing the data. After extensive propensity score matching for atrial fibrillation, current smoking, systolic blood pressure, the presence or absence of a cortical stroke lesion, large vessel stenosis, and other possible confounders, they were left with two closely comparable groups: 886 statin-treated stroke patients and an equal number who were not on statin therapy during their acute stroke management. The key finding: The risk of ESS was reduced by a whopping 77% in the patients on statin therapy.

The neurologist observed that these new findings in acute ischemic stroke patients are consistent with an earlier study in a U.S. Veterans Affairs population, which demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of new-onset geriatric epilepsy (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Feb;57[2]:237-42).

As to the possible mechanism by which statins may protect against ESS, Dr. Matsubara noted that acute ischemic stroke causes toxic neuronal excitation because of blood-brain barrier disruption, ion channel dysfunction, altered gene expression, and increased release of neurotransmitters. In animal models, statins provide a neuroprotective effect by reducing glutamate levels, activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and inhibiting production of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and other inflammatory cytokines.

Asked about the intensity of the statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara replied that the target was typically an LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsubara S et al. IEC 219, Abstract P002.

BANGKOK – Statin therapy, even when initiated only upon hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, was associated with a striking reduction in the risk of early poststroke symptomatic seizure in a large observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Using propensity-score matching to control for potential confounders, use of a statin during acute stroke management was associated with a “robust” 77% reduction in the risk of developing a symptomatic seizure within 7 days after hospital admission, Soichiro Matsubara, MD, reported at the International Epilepsy Congress.

This is an important finding because early symptomatic seizure (ESS) occurs in 2%-7% of patients following an acute ischemic stroke. Moreover, an Italian meta-analysis concluded that ESS was associated with a 4.4-fold increased risk of developing poststroke epilepsy (Epilepsia. 2016 Aug;57[8]:1205-14), noted Dr. Matsubara, a neurologist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, as well as at Kumamoto (Japan) University.

He presented a study of 2,969 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with no history of epilepsy who were admitted to the Japanese comprehensive stroke center, of whom 2.2% experienced ESS. At physician discretion, 19% of the ESS cohort were on a statin during their acute stroke management, as were 55% of the no-ESS group. Four-fifths of patients on a statin initiated the drug only upon hospital admission.

Strokes tended to be more severe in the ESS group, with a median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 12.5, compared with 4 in the seizure-free patients. A cortical stroke lesion was evident upon imaging in 89% of the ESS group and 55% of no-ESS patients. Among ESS patients, 46% had a cardiometabolic stroke, compared with 34% of the no-ESS cohort. Mean C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts were significantly higher in the ESS cohort as well. Their median hospital length of stay was 25.5 days, versus 18 days in the no-ESS group, Dr. Matsubara said at the congress sponsored by the International League Against Epilepsy.

Of the 76 ESSs that occurred in 66 patients, 37% were focal awareness seizures, 35% were focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 28% were focal impaired awareness seizures.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, stroke subtype, and other potential confounders, statin therapy during acute management of stroke was independently associated with a 56% reduction in the relative risk of ESS. In contrast, a cortical stroke lesion was associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk.

Since this wasn’t a randomized trial of statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara and his coinvestigators felt the need to go further in analyzing the data. After extensive propensity score matching for atrial fibrillation, current smoking, systolic blood pressure, the presence or absence of a cortical stroke lesion, large vessel stenosis, and other possible confounders, they were left with two closely comparable groups: 886 statin-treated stroke patients and an equal number who were not on statin therapy during their acute stroke management. The key finding: The risk of ESS was reduced by a whopping 77% in the patients on statin therapy.

The neurologist observed that these new findings in acute ischemic stroke patients are consistent with an earlier study in a U.S. Veterans Affairs population, which demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of new-onset geriatric epilepsy (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Feb;57[2]:237-42).

As to the possible mechanism by which statins may protect against ESS, Dr. Matsubara noted that acute ischemic stroke causes toxic neuronal excitation because of blood-brain barrier disruption, ion channel dysfunction, altered gene expression, and increased release of neurotransmitters. In animal models, statins provide a neuroprotective effect by reducing glutamate levels, activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and inhibiting production of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and other inflammatory cytokines.

Asked about the intensity of the statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara replied that the target was typically an LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsubara S et al. IEC 219, Abstract P002.

BANGKOK – Statin therapy, even when initiated only upon hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, was associated with a striking reduction in the risk of early poststroke symptomatic seizure in a large observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Using propensity-score matching to control for potential confounders, use of a statin during acute stroke management was associated with a “robust” 77% reduction in the risk of developing a symptomatic seizure within 7 days after hospital admission, Soichiro Matsubara, MD, reported at the International Epilepsy Congress.

This is an important finding because early symptomatic seizure (ESS) occurs in 2%-7% of patients following an acute ischemic stroke. Moreover, an Italian meta-analysis concluded that ESS was associated with a 4.4-fold increased risk of developing poststroke epilepsy (Epilepsia. 2016 Aug;57[8]:1205-14), noted Dr. Matsubara, a neurologist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, as well as at Kumamoto (Japan) University.

He presented a study of 2,969 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with no history of epilepsy who were admitted to the Japanese comprehensive stroke center, of whom 2.2% experienced ESS. At physician discretion, 19% of the ESS cohort were on a statin during their acute stroke management, as were 55% of the no-ESS group. Four-fifths of patients on a statin initiated the drug only upon hospital admission.

Strokes tended to be more severe in the ESS group, with a median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 12.5, compared with 4 in the seizure-free patients. A cortical stroke lesion was evident upon imaging in 89% of the ESS group and 55% of no-ESS patients. Among ESS patients, 46% had a cardiometabolic stroke, compared with 34% of the no-ESS cohort. Mean C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts were significantly higher in the ESS cohort as well. Their median hospital length of stay was 25.5 days, versus 18 days in the no-ESS group, Dr. Matsubara said at the congress sponsored by the International League Against Epilepsy.

Of the 76 ESSs that occurred in 66 patients, 37% were focal awareness seizures, 35% were focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 28% were focal impaired awareness seizures.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, stroke subtype, and other potential confounders, statin therapy during acute management of stroke was independently associated with a 56% reduction in the relative risk of ESS. In contrast, a cortical stroke lesion was associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk.

Since this wasn’t a randomized trial of statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara and his coinvestigators felt the need to go further in analyzing the data. After extensive propensity score matching for atrial fibrillation, current smoking, systolic blood pressure, the presence or absence of a cortical stroke lesion, large vessel stenosis, and other possible confounders, they were left with two closely comparable groups: 886 statin-treated stroke patients and an equal number who were not on statin therapy during their acute stroke management. The key finding: The risk of ESS was reduced by a whopping 77% in the patients on statin therapy.

The neurologist observed that these new findings in acute ischemic stroke patients are consistent with an earlier study in a U.S. Veterans Affairs population, which demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of new-onset geriatric epilepsy (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Feb;57[2]:237-42).

As to the possible mechanism by which statins may protect against ESS, Dr. Matsubara noted that acute ischemic stroke causes toxic neuronal excitation because of blood-brain barrier disruption, ion channel dysfunction, altered gene expression, and increased release of neurotransmitters. In animal models, statins provide a neuroprotective effect by reducing glutamate levels, activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and inhibiting production of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and other inflammatory cytokines.

Asked about the intensity of the statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara replied that the target was typically an LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsubara S et al. IEC 219, Abstract P002.

LOS ANGELES – Estrogen therapy may have scored another goal in its comeback game, as a 7-year prospective study shows that a transdermal formulation preserves some measures of cognitive function and brain architecture in postmenopausal women.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

In addition to performing better on subjective tests of memory, women using the estrogen patch experienced less cortical atrophy and were less likely to show amyloid on brain imaging. The observations were moderately associated with the improved sleep these women reported, Burcu Zeydan, MD, said at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“By 7 years, among the cognitive domains studied ... [less brain and cognitive change] correlated with lower global sleep score, meaning better sleep quality in the estradiol group,” said Dr. Zeydan, assistant professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We previously found that preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex over 7 years was associated with lower cortical beta-amyloid deposition on PET only in the estradiol group, pointing out the potential role of estrogen receptors in modulating this relationship.”

Dysregulated sleep is more common among women than men, particularly as menopause approaches and estrogen levels fluctuate, then decline, Dr. Zeydan said.

Dr. Zeydan reported the sleep substudy of KEEPS (the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite trial that compared oral conjugated equine estrogen with transdermal estradiol. A control group received oral placebo and a placebo patch.*

Brain architecture was similar between the placebo and transdermal groups, but it was actually worse in some measures in the oral-estrogen group, compared with the placebo group. Women taking oral estrogen had more white matter hyperintensities, greater ventricle enlargement, and more cortical thinning. Those differences resolved after they stopped taking the oral formulation, bringing them into line with the transdermal and placebo groups.

The investigation also found that the transdermal group showed lower cerebral amyloid binding on PET scans relative to both placebo and oral estrogen.

“The relative preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical volume in the [transdermal estradiol] group over 7 years indicates that hormone therapy may have long-term effects on the brain,” the team concluded. They noted that the original KEEPS study didn’t find any cognitive correlation with these changes.

The subanalysis looked at 69 women of the KEEPS cohort who had been followed for the full 7 years (4 years on treatment and 3 years off treatment). They were randomized to oral placebo and a placebo patch,* oral conjugated equine estrogen (0.45 mg/day), or transdermal estradiol (50 mcg/day). Participants in the active treatment groups received oral micronized progesterone 12 days each month. All had complete data on cognitive testing and brain imaging. Sleep quality was measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Dr. Zeydan compared cognition and brain architecture findings in relation to the sleep score; lower scores mean better sleep.

The women were aged 42-58 years at baseline, and within 36 months from menopause. They had no history of menopausal hormone therapy or cardiovascular disease.

The investigators were particularly interested in how estrogen might have modulated the disturbed sleep patterns that often accompany perimenopause and early menopause, and whether the observed brain and cognitive changes tracked with sleep quality.

“During this time, 40% to 60% of women report problems sleeping, and estrogen decline seems to play an important role in sleep disturbances during this phase,” Dr. Zeydan said. “Although poor sleep quality is common in recently menopausal women, sleep quality improves with hormone therapy, as was previously demonstrated in KEEPS hormone therapy trial in recently menopausal women.”

By year 7, the cohort’s mean age was 61 years. The majority had at least some college education. The percentage who carried an apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 allele varied by group, with 15% positivity in the oral group, 48% in the transdermal group, and 16% in the placebo group.


Cognitive function was estimated with a global cognitive measure and four cognitive domain scores: verbal learning and memory, auditory attention and working memory, visual attention and executive function, and mental flexibility.

Higher attention and executive function scores were moderately correlated with a lower sleep score in the transdermal group (r = –0.54, a significant difference compared with the oral formulation). Lower sleep scores also showed a moderate correlation with preserved cortical volume of the dorsolateral prefrontal region (r = –0.47, also significantly different from the oral group).

Lower brain amyloid also positively correlated with better sleep. The correlation between sleep and global amyloid burden in the transdermal group was also moderate (r = 0.45), while the correlation in the oral group was significantly weaker (r = 0.18).

“We can say that sleep quality and transdermal estradiol during early postmenopausal years somehow interact to influence beta-amyloid deposition, preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume, and attention and executive function,” Dr. Zeydan said.

Dr. Zeydan had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

*Correction, 8/7/2019: An earlier version of this story did not make clear that participants in the control group received oral placebo and a placebo patch.

LOS ANGELES – Estrogen therapy may have scored another goal in its comeback game, as a 7-year prospective study shows that a transdermal formulation preserves some measures of cognitive function and brain architecture in postmenopausal women.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

In addition to performing better on subjective tests of memory, women using the estrogen patch experienced less cortical atrophy and were less likely to show amyloid on brain imaging. The observations were moderately associated with the improved sleep these women reported, Burcu Zeydan, MD, said at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“By 7 years, among the cognitive domains studied ... [less brain and cognitive change] correlated with lower global sleep score, meaning better sleep quality in the estradiol group,” said Dr. Zeydan, assistant professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We previously found that preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex over 7 years was associated with lower cortical beta-amyloid deposition on PET only in the estradiol group, pointing out the potential role of estrogen receptors in modulating this relationship.”

Dysregulated sleep is more common among women than men, particularly as menopause approaches and estrogen levels fluctuate, then decline, Dr. Zeydan said.

Dr. Zeydan reported the sleep substudy of KEEPS (the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite trial that compared oral conjugated equine estrogen with transdermal estradiol. A control group received oral placebo and a placebo patch.*

Brain architecture was similar between the placebo and transdermal groups, but it was actually worse in some measures in the oral-estrogen group, compared with the placebo group. Women taking oral estrogen had more white matter hyperintensities, greater ventricle enlargement, and more cortical thinning. Those differences resolved after they stopped taking the oral formulation, bringing them into line with the transdermal and placebo groups.

The investigation also found that the transdermal group showed lower cerebral amyloid binding on PET scans relative to both placebo and oral estrogen.

“The relative preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical volume in the [transdermal estradiol] group over 7 years indicates that hormone therapy may have long-term effects on the brain,” the team concluded. They noted that the original KEEPS study didn’t find any cognitive correlation with these changes.

The subanalysis looked at 69 women of the KEEPS cohort who had been followed for the full 7 years (4 years on treatment and 3 years off treatment). They were randomized to oral placebo and a placebo patch,* oral conjugated equine estrogen (0.45 mg/day), or transdermal estradiol (50 mcg/day). Participants in the active treatment groups received oral micronized progesterone 12 days each month. All had complete data on cognitive testing and brain imaging. Sleep quality was measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Dr. Zeydan compared cognition and brain architecture findings in relation to the sleep score; lower scores mean better sleep.

The women were aged 42-58 years at baseline, and within 36 months from menopause. They had no history of menopausal hormone therapy or cardiovascular disease.

The investigators were particularly interested in how estrogen might have modulated the disturbed sleep patterns that often accompany perimenopause and early menopause, and whether the observed brain and cognitive changes tracked with sleep quality.

“During this time, 40% to 60% of women report problems sleeping, and estrogen decline seems to play an important role in sleep disturbances during this phase,” Dr. Zeydan said. “Although poor sleep quality is common in recently menopausal women, sleep quality improves with hormone therapy, as was previously demonstrated in KEEPS hormone therapy trial in recently menopausal women.”

By year 7, the cohort’s mean age was 61 years. The majority had at least some college education. The percentage who carried an apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 allele varied by group, with 15% positivity in the oral group, 48% in the transdermal group, and 16% in the placebo group.


Cognitive function was estimated with a global cognitive measure and four cognitive domain scores: verbal learning and memory, auditory attention and working memory, visual attention and executive function, and mental flexibility.

Higher attention and executive function scores were moderately correlated with a lower sleep score in the transdermal group (r = –0.54, a significant difference compared with the oral formulation). Lower sleep scores also showed a moderate correlation with preserved cortical volume of the dorsolateral prefrontal region (r = –0.47, also significantly different from the oral group).

Lower brain amyloid also positively correlated with better sleep. The correlation between sleep and global amyloid burden in the transdermal group was also moderate (r = 0.45), while the correlation in the oral group was significantly weaker (r = 0.18).

“We can say that sleep quality and transdermal estradiol during early postmenopausal years somehow interact to influence beta-amyloid deposition, preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume, and attention and executive function,” Dr. Zeydan said.

Dr. Zeydan had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

*Correction, 8/7/2019: An earlier version of this story did not make clear that participants in the control group received oral placebo and a placebo patch.

LOS ANGELES – Estrogen therapy may have scored another goal in its comeback game, as a 7-year prospective study shows that a transdermal formulation preserves some measures of cognitive function and brain architecture in postmenopausal women.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

In addition to performing better on subjective tests of memory, women using the estrogen patch experienced less cortical atrophy and were less likely to show amyloid on brain imaging. The observations were moderately associated with the improved sleep these women reported, Burcu Zeydan, MD, said at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“By 7 years, among the cognitive domains studied ... [less brain and cognitive change] correlated with lower global sleep score, meaning better sleep quality in the estradiol group,” said Dr. Zeydan, assistant professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We previously found that preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex over 7 years was associated with lower cortical beta-amyloid deposition on PET only in the estradiol group, pointing out the potential role of estrogen receptors in modulating this relationship.”

Dysregulated sleep is more common among women than men, particularly as menopause approaches and estrogen levels fluctuate, then decline, Dr. Zeydan said.

Dr. Zeydan reported the sleep substudy of KEEPS (the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite trial that compared oral conjugated equine estrogen with transdermal estradiol. A control group received oral placebo and a placebo patch.*

Brain architecture was similar between the placebo and transdermal groups, but it was actually worse in some measures in the oral-estrogen group, compared with the placebo group. Women taking oral estrogen had more white matter hyperintensities, greater ventricle enlargement, and more cortical thinning. Those differences resolved after they stopped taking the oral formulation, bringing them into line with the transdermal and placebo groups.

The investigation also found that the transdermal group showed lower cerebral amyloid binding on PET scans relative to both placebo and oral estrogen.

“The relative preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical volume in the [transdermal estradiol] group over 7 years indicates that hormone therapy may have long-term effects on the brain,” the team concluded. They noted that the original KEEPS study didn’t find any cognitive correlation with these changes.

The subanalysis looked at 69 women of the KEEPS cohort who had been followed for the full 7 years (4 years on treatment and 3 years off treatment). They were randomized to oral placebo and a placebo patch,* oral conjugated equine estrogen (0.45 mg/day), or transdermal estradiol (50 mcg/day). Participants in the active treatment groups received oral micronized progesterone 12 days each month. All had complete data on cognitive testing and brain imaging. Sleep quality was measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Dr. Zeydan compared cognition and brain architecture findings in relation to the sleep score; lower scores mean better sleep.

The women were aged 42-58 years at baseline, and within 36 months from menopause. They had no history of menopausal hormone therapy or cardiovascular disease.

The investigators were particularly interested in how estrogen might have modulated the disturbed sleep patterns that often accompany perimenopause and early menopause, and whether the observed brain and cognitive changes tracked with sleep quality.

“During this time, 40% to 60% of women report problems sleeping, and estrogen decline seems to play an important role in sleep disturbances during this phase,” Dr. Zeydan said. “Although poor sleep quality is common in recently menopausal women, sleep quality improves with hormone therapy, as was previously demonstrated in KEEPS hormone therapy trial in recently menopausal women.”

By year 7, the cohort’s mean age was 61 years. The majority had at least some college education. The percentage who carried an apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 allele varied by group, with 15% positivity in the oral group, 48% in the transdermal group, and 16% in the placebo group.


Cognitive function was estimated with a global cognitive measure and four cognitive domain scores: verbal learning and memory, auditory attention and working memory, visual attention and executive function, and mental flexibility.

Higher attention and executive function scores were moderately correlated with a lower sleep score in the transdermal group (r = –0.54, a significant difference compared with the oral formulation). Lower sleep scores also showed a moderate correlation with preserved cortical volume of the dorsolateral prefrontal region (r = –0.47, also significantly different from the oral group).

Lower brain amyloid also positively correlated with better sleep. The correlation between sleep and global amyloid burden in the transdermal group was also moderate (r = 0.45), while the correlation in the oral group was significantly weaker (r = 0.18).

“We can say that sleep quality and transdermal estradiol during early postmenopausal years somehow interact to influence beta-amyloid deposition, preservation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume, and attention and executive function,” Dr. Zeydan said.

Dr. Zeydan had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

*Correction, 8/7/2019: An earlier version of this story did not make clear that participants in the control group received oral placebo and a placebo patch.

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
 

Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.

“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.

Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”

“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”

According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.

“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.

Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”

“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
 

The side effects

While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.

“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”

Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.

These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.

“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

The benefits

Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.

Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-­analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).

“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.

SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.

“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.

SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."

Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.

Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”

Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).

In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).

These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”

Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.

For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”

Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”

Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).

“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.

Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
 

The combination therapies

Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).

Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
 

Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.

There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
 

What about adding insulin?

“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A_1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”

Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.

“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.

Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.

“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.

[email protected]

The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
 

Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.

“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.

Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”

“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”

According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.

“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.

Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”

“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
 

The side effects

While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.

“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”

Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.

These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.

“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

The benefits

Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.

Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-­analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).

“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.

SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.

“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.

SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."

Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.

Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”

Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).

In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).

These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”

Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.

For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”

Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”

Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).

“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.

Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
 

The combination therapies

Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).

Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
 

Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.

There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
 

What about adding insulin?

“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A_1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”

Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.

“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.

Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.

“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.

[email protected]

The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
 

Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.

“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.

Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”

“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”

According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.

“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.

Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”

“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
 

The side effects

While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.

“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”

Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.

These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.

“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

The benefits

Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.

Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-­analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).

“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.

SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.

“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.

SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."

Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.

Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”

Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).

In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).

These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”

Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.

For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”

Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”

Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).

“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.

Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
 

The combination therapies

Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).

Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
 

Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.

There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
 

What about adding insulin?

“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A_1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”

Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.

“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.

Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.

“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.

In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).

The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.

“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).

Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.

The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).

The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.

Treatment

Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.

The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.

Safety

Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).

Efficacy

One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.

The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.

Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).

Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.

“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.

The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.

The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.

CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.

In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).

The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.

“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).

Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.

The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).

The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.

Treatment

Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.

The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.

Safety

Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).

Efficacy

One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.

The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.

Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).

Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.

“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.

The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.

The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.

CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.

In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).

The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.

“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).

Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.

The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).

The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.

Treatment

Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.

The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.

Safety

Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).

Efficacy

One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.

The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.

Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).

Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.

“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.

The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.

The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.