Pharmacology

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of biosimilars are carefully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the biosimilar meets the high standards for approval. However, safety concerns from infusion nursing staff prompted a review of rituximab-PVVR and rituximab for any new trends in National VA, primary literature, and facility adverse events.

METHODS

Utilizing the VA ADERS (Veteran’s Affairs Adverse Drug Event Reporting System), data was analyzed from 01/01/21 thru 04/01/23. No clear trends were identified to support an increased reaction rate for Rituximab-PVVR or Rituximab. A total of 104 Rituximab product (both parent and biosimilar products) adverse reactions were reported nationally. Of those reported, about half 56 ADEs (54%) were specifically to Rituximab-PVVR.

RESULTS

Reviewing our facility specific VA ADERS data, Birmingham VA reported 7 ADEs. Similarly other sites reported a range of 0 to 13 Rituximab product ADEs. The total number of unique patients to receive a rituximab product in the Birmingham VA since 2021 is 106, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 6.6%.

DISCUSSION

Based on the recent publication, Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology “adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of biosimilars.” This prospective clinical trial published in 2021, reported grade 1 rituximab related infusion events in 7.1% of patients (n=83) which correlates closely to the reported incidence at our facility referenced above (6.6%). Our current pre-medications include acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and steroid 30 minutes prior to infusion. Although our interdisciplinary team deemed this appropriate, to improve and minimize infusion reaction symptoms, the following interventions were instituted including changing ORAL Diphenhydramine to intravenous Diphenhydramine 25mg IV and providing education to infusion nursing staff on the safety and efficacy of the rituximab and biosimilar products.

CONCLUSIONS

Following the intervention (04/07/23), 36 total unique patients received rituximab products with zero incidents reported. Although the results are limited, the data may suggest IV diphenhydramine reduces the severity of ADEs which may alter reporting or show a potential “nocebo” effect could be a factor with any rituximab infusion needing further evaluation.

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of biosimilars are carefully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the biosimilar meets the high standards for approval. However, safety concerns from infusion nursing staff prompted a review of rituximab-PVVR and rituximab for any new trends in National VA, primary literature, and facility adverse events.

METHODS

Utilizing the VA ADERS (Veteran’s Affairs Adverse Drug Event Reporting System), data was analyzed from 01/01/21 thru 04/01/23. No clear trends were identified to support an increased reaction rate for Rituximab-PVVR or Rituximab. A total of 104 Rituximab product (both parent and biosimilar products) adverse reactions were reported nationally. Of those reported, about half 56 ADEs (54%) were specifically to Rituximab-PVVR.

RESULTS

Reviewing our facility specific VA ADERS data, Birmingham VA reported 7 ADEs. Similarly other sites reported a range of 0 to 13 Rituximab product ADEs. The total number of unique patients to receive a rituximab product in the Birmingham VA since 2021 is 106, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 6.6%.

DISCUSSION

Based on the recent publication, Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology “adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of biosimilars.” This prospective clinical trial published in 2021, reported grade 1 rituximab related infusion events in 7.1% of patients (n=83) which correlates closely to the reported incidence at our facility referenced above (6.6%). Our current pre-medications include acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and steroid 30 minutes prior to infusion. Although our interdisciplinary team deemed this appropriate, to improve and minimize infusion reaction symptoms, the following interventions were instituted including changing ORAL Diphenhydramine to intravenous Diphenhydramine 25mg IV and providing education to infusion nursing staff on the safety and efficacy of the rituximab and biosimilar products.

CONCLUSIONS

Following the intervention (04/07/23), 36 total unique patients received rituximab products with zero incidents reported. Although the results are limited, the data may suggest IV diphenhydramine reduces the severity of ADEs which may alter reporting or show a potential “nocebo” effect could be a factor with any rituximab infusion needing further evaluation.

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of biosimilars are carefully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the biosimilar meets the high standards for approval. However, safety concerns from infusion nursing staff prompted a review of rituximab-PVVR and rituximab for any new trends in National VA, primary literature, and facility adverse events.

METHODS

Utilizing the VA ADERS (Veteran’s Affairs Adverse Drug Event Reporting System), data was analyzed from 01/01/21 thru 04/01/23. No clear trends were identified to support an increased reaction rate for Rituximab-PVVR or Rituximab. A total of 104 Rituximab product (both parent and biosimilar products) adverse reactions were reported nationally. Of those reported, about half 56 ADEs (54%) were specifically to Rituximab-PVVR.

RESULTS

Reviewing our facility specific VA ADERS data, Birmingham VA reported 7 ADEs. Similarly other sites reported a range of 0 to 13 Rituximab product ADEs. The total number of unique patients to receive a rituximab product in the Birmingham VA since 2021 is 106, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 6.6%.

DISCUSSION

Based on the recent publication, Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology “adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of biosimilars.” This prospective clinical trial published in 2021, reported grade 1 rituximab related infusion events in 7.1% of patients (n=83) which correlates closely to the reported incidence at our facility referenced above (6.6%). Our current pre-medications include acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and steroid 30 minutes prior to infusion. Although our interdisciplinary team deemed this appropriate, to improve and minimize infusion reaction symptoms, the following interventions were instituted including changing ORAL Diphenhydramine to intravenous Diphenhydramine 25mg IV and providing education to infusion nursing staff on the safety and efficacy of the rituximab and biosimilar products.

CONCLUSIONS

Following the intervention (04/07/23), 36 total unique patients received rituximab products with zero incidents reported. Although the results are limited, the data may suggest IV diphenhydramine reduces the severity of ADEs which may alter reporting or show a potential “nocebo” effect could be a factor with any rituximab infusion needing further evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine is a part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, but its role in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. We describe a case of relapsed CLL showing complete response while on gemcitabine for another primary malignancy, suggesting a potential curative role of gemcitabine for CLL.

CASE REPORT

A 78-year-old male with relapsed CD38+ CLL with del11q on ibrutinib with partial response, presented with gross hematuria for one week. Of note, he was diagnosed with BRCA-negative Stage Ib pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the previous year, treated with surgery and adjuvant capecitabine-gemcitabine. Physical examination was unremarkable and bloodwork showed a white cell count of 32,000 cells/ mm3 with 1.5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dL, and platelets 866,000 cells/mm3. Hematuria remained persistent despite frequent bladder irrigations but resolved within a week of stopping ibrutinib. Eight months later, his white cell count is 6,600 cells/mm3, with 16% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 10.2 g/dL, platelets 519,000/m3, and CT scans show no pathological lymphadenopathy. A recent flow cytometry done for academic purposes showed no clonal B cells.

DISCUSSION

Relapsed CLL has a poor prognosis with no curative treatment. Gemcitabine is a part of NCCN guidelines for relapse/refractory B-cell lymphomas but is not included in guidelines for CLL. A study by Jamie et al in 2001 suggested the pre-clinical effectiveness of gemcitabine for relapsed/refractory CLL and phase II trials conducted in 2005 and 2012 on combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine have shown overall CLL response rates of 50-65%. The resolution of B-cell clonality and improvement in biochemical markers after treatment with gemcitabine for an alternate primary malignancy suggested that gemcitabine played a potential curative role in our patient. Further prospective studies are needed to explore this avenue for the role of gemcitabine as a salvage as well as potentially curative therapy for relapsed CLL with variable cytogenetics and treatment histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine is not part of NCCN guidelines for CLL currently but it is a reasonable treatment option for relapsed/refractory CLL. Further studies are needed to explore its potential curative role for relapsed CLL, and update existing guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine is a part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, but its role in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. We describe a case of relapsed CLL showing complete response while on gemcitabine for another primary malignancy, suggesting a potential curative role of gemcitabine for CLL.

CASE REPORT

A 78-year-old male with relapsed CD38+ CLL with del11q on ibrutinib with partial response, presented with gross hematuria for one week. Of note, he was diagnosed with BRCA-negative Stage Ib pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the previous year, treated with surgery and adjuvant capecitabine-gemcitabine. Physical examination was unremarkable and bloodwork showed a white cell count of 32,000 cells/ mm3 with 1.5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dL, and platelets 866,000 cells/mm3. Hematuria remained persistent despite frequent bladder irrigations but resolved within a week of stopping ibrutinib. Eight months later, his white cell count is 6,600 cells/mm3, with 16% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 10.2 g/dL, platelets 519,000/m3, and CT scans show no pathological lymphadenopathy. A recent flow cytometry done for academic purposes showed no clonal B cells.

DISCUSSION

Relapsed CLL has a poor prognosis with no curative treatment. Gemcitabine is a part of NCCN guidelines for relapse/refractory B-cell lymphomas but is not included in guidelines for CLL. A study by Jamie et al in 2001 suggested the pre-clinical effectiveness of gemcitabine for relapsed/refractory CLL and phase II trials conducted in 2005 and 2012 on combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine have shown overall CLL response rates of 50-65%. The resolution of B-cell clonality and improvement in biochemical markers after treatment with gemcitabine for an alternate primary malignancy suggested that gemcitabine played a potential curative role in our patient. Further prospective studies are needed to explore this avenue for the role of gemcitabine as a salvage as well as potentially curative therapy for relapsed CLL with variable cytogenetics and treatment histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine is not part of NCCN guidelines for CLL currently but it is a reasonable treatment option for relapsed/refractory CLL. Further studies are needed to explore its potential curative role for relapsed CLL, and update existing guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine is a part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, but its role in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. We describe a case of relapsed CLL showing complete response while on gemcitabine for another primary malignancy, suggesting a potential curative role of gemcitabine for CLL.

CASE REPORT

A 78-year-old male with relapsed CD38+ CLL with del11q on ibrutinib with partial response, presented with gross hematuria for one week. Of note, he was diagnosed with BRCA-negative Stage Ib pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the previous year, treated with surgery and adjuvant capecitabine-gemcitabine. Physical examination was unremarkable and bloodwork showed a white cell count of 32,000 cells/ mm3 with 1.5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dL, and platelets 866,000 cells/mm3. Hematuria remained persistent despite frequent bladder irrigations but resolved within a week of stopping ibrutinib. Eight months later, his white cell count is 6,600 cells/mm3, with 16% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 10.2 g/dL, platelets 519,000/m3, and CT scans show no pathological lymphadenopathy. A recent flow cytometry done for academic purposes showed no clonal B cells.

DISCUSSION

Relapsed CLL has a poor prognosis with no curative treatment. Gemcitabine is a part of NCCN guidelines for relapse/refractory B-cell lymphomas but is not included in guidelines for CLL. A study by Jamie et al in 2001 suggested the pre-clinical effectiveness of gemcitabine for relapsed/refractory CLL and phase II trials conducted in 2005 and 2012 on combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine have shown overall CLL response rates of 50-65%. The resolution of B-cell clonality and improvement in biochemical markers after treatment with gemcitabine for an alternate primary malignancy suggested that gemcitabine played a potential curative role in our patient. Further prospective studies are needed to explore this avenue for the role of gemcitabine as a salvage as well as potentially curative therapy for relapsed CLL with variable cytogenetics and treatment histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine is not part of NCCN guidelines for CLL currently but it is a reasonable treatment option for relapsed/refractory CLL. Further studies are needed to explore its potential curative role for relapsed CLL, and update existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) program provides preemptive pharmacogenomic testing for Veterans nationally. Program implementation at the Madison VA began in the hematology and oncology (hem/onc) clinics. In these clinics, PHASER test results are reviewed by the hem/onc clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who provides recommendations regarding therapy via an electronic health record note. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to assess the impact of the CPP on medication management informed by pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed for all Veterans enrolled in hem/onc services and offered PHASER testing between April 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. The number and type of interventions recommended by the hem/onc CPP, acceptance of recommended interventions, and hem/onc CPP time spent were collected for all patients who accepted and completed PHASER testing. Interventions were categorized and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients reviewed by the CPP, 75 (77%) were prescribed a medication with potential pharmacogenomic implications. At least one actionable recommendation for medication therapy adjustment was identified for 40 (53%) of those patients based on their pharmacogenomic test results. The CPP spent an average of 12 minutes per patient review (range 5 to 30 minutes) and 100% of CPP recommendations were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPP efficiently reviewed pharmacogenomic test results and made meaningful recommendations for medication therapy adjustments. CPP recommendations were highly accepted in the hem/onc setting.

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) program provides preemptive pharmacogenomic testing for Veterans nationally. Program implementation at the Madison VA began in the hematology and oncology (hem/onc) clinics. In these clinics, PHASER test results are reviewed by the hem/onc clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who provides recommendations regarding therapy via an electronic health record note. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to assess the impact of the CPP on medication management informed by pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed for all Veterans enrolled in hem/onc services and offered PHASER testing between April 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. The number and type of interventions recommended by the hem/onc CPP, acceptance of recommended interventions, and hem/onc CPP time spent were collected for all patients who accepted and completed PHASER testing. Interventions were categorized and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients reviewed by the CPP, 75 (77%) were prescribed a medication with potential pharmacogenomic implications. At least one actionable recommendation for medication therapy adjustment was identified for 40 (53%) of those patients based on their pharmacogenomic test results. The CPP spent an average of 12 minutes per patient review (range 5 to 30 minutes) and 100% of CPP recommendations were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPP efficiently reviewed pharmacogenomic test results and made meaningful recommendations for medication therapy adjustments. CPP recommendations were highly accepted in the hem/onc setting.

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) program provides preemptive pharmacogenomic testing for Veterans nationally. Program implementation at the Madison VA began in the hematology and oncology (hem/onc) clinics. In these clinics, PHASER test results are reviewed by the hem/onc clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who provides recommendations regarding therapy via an electronic health record note. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to assess the impact of the CPP on medication management informed by pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed for all Veterans enrolled in hem/onc services and offered PHASER testing between April 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. The number and type of interventions recommended by the hem/onc CPP, acceptance of recommended interventions, and hem/onc CPP time spent were collected for all patients who accepted and completed PHASER testing. Interventions were categorized and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients reviewed by the CPP, 75 (77%) were prescribed a medication with potential pharmacogenomic implications. At least one actionable recommendation for medication therapy adjustment was identified for 40 (53%) of those patients based on their pharmacogenomic test results. The CPP spent an average of 12 minutes per patient review (range 5 to 30 minutes) and 100% of CPP recommendations were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPP efficiently reviewed pharmacogenomic test results and made meaningful recommendations for medication therapy adjustments. CPP recommendations were highly accepted in the hem/onc setting.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID) is a safe and effective alternative to iron sucrose for intravenous iron administration.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravenous iron administration has increased due to clinical indications and rapid iron repletion. Early IV iron formulations had safety concerns that precluded widespread use. High molecular weight iron dextran was removed from the US market in 2009 due to safety concerns. Since then, several new IV formulations including LMWID and iron sucrose have been approved with a favorable benefit risk profile. While recent evidence and guidelines indicate that LMWID and other iron formulations have comparable safety profiles, no head-to-head comparisons exist. Both iron sucrose and LMWID are used for the treatment of IDA in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Iron sucrose is given 200 mg weekly for 5 weeks, while LMWID is given as a single 1-gram dose over 3 hours. We conducted a retrospective crosssectional analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of IV LMWID to IV iron sucrose.

METHODS

We identified 129 patients (LMWID: n=29, iron sucrose: n=100) who received intravenous iron from 01/01/2022 to 03/03/2023. To match the sample size, we selected every 3rd patient from the iron sucrose group (n=33). We captured data on infusion-related reactions, history of asthma/inflammatory bowel disease/> 2 drug allergies, overall and ≥ 2 g/dL hemoglobin increase, and treatment cost. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety and efficacy parameters. An unpaired t-test was used to calculate statistical significance of the cost.

RESULTS

We found that 82.7% of the patients who received LMWID had an increase in hemoglobin vs. 60.6% in the iron sucrose group. 48.3% of patients in LMWID had ≥ 2 hemoglobin increases vs. 27.3% in the iron sucrose group. The cost for LMWID administration was $2016.10, compared to $2315.40 for administration of IV iron sucrose cost. Two-tailed p value < 0.0001 indicating the observed difference to be statistically significant. No infusion reactions were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center analysis, IV LMWID administered provided comparable safety, and improved effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness to iron sucrose.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID) is a safe and effective alternative to iron sucrose for intravenous iron administration.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravenous iron administration has increased due to clinical indications and rapid iron repletion. Early IV iron formulations had safety concerns that precluded widespread use. High molecular weight iron dextran was removed from the US market in 2009 due to safety concerns. Since then, several new IV formulations including LMWID and iron sucrose have been approved with a favorable benefit risk profile. While recent evidence and guidelines indicate that LMWID and other iron formulations have comparable safety profiles, no head-to-head comparisons exist. Both iron sucrose and LMWID are used for the treatment of IDA in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Iron sucrose is given 200 mg weekly for 5 weeks, while LMWID is given as a single 1-gram dose over 3 hours. We conducted a retrospective crosssectional analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of IV LMWID to IV iron sucrose.

METHODS

We identified 129 patients (LMWID: n=29, iron sucrose: n=100) who received intravenous iron from 01/01/2022 to 03/03/2023. To match the sample size, we selected every 3rd patient from the iron sucrose group (n=33). We captured data on infusion-related reactions, history of asthma/inflammatory bowel disease/> 2 drug allergies, overall and ≥ 2 g/dL hemoglobin increase, and treatment cost. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety and efficacy parameters. An unpaired t-test was used to calculate statistical significance of the cost.

RESULTS

We found that 82.7% of the patients who received LMWID had an increase in hemoglobin vs. 60.6% in the iron sucrose group. 48.3% of patients in LMWID had ≥ 2 hemoglobin increases vs. 27.3% in the iron sucrose group. The cost for LMWID administration was $2016.10, compared to $2315.40 for administration of IV iron sucrose cost. Two-tailed p value < 0.0001 indicating the observed difference to be statistically significant. No infusion reactions were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center analysis, IV LMWID administered provided comparable safety, and improved effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness to iron sucrose.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID) is a safe and effective alternative to iron sucrose for intravenous iron administration.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravenous iron administration has increased due to clinical indications and rapid iron repletion. Early IV iron formulations had safety concerns that precluded widespread use. High molecular weight iron dextran was removed from the US market in 2009 due to safety concerns. Since then, several new IV formulations including LMWID and iron sucrose have been approved with a favorable benefit risk profile. While recent evidence and guidelines indicate that LMWID and other iron formulations have comparable safety profiles, no head-to-head comparisons exist. Both iron sucrose and LMWID are used for the treatment of IDA in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Iron sucrose is given 200 mg weekly for 5 weeks, while LMWID is given as a single 1-gram dose over 3 hours. We conducted a retrospective crosssectional analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of IV LMWID to IV iron sucrose.

METHODS

We identified 129 patients (LMWID: n=29, iron sucrose: n=100) who received intravenous iron from 01/01/2022 to 03/03/2023. To match the sample size, we selected every 3rd patient from the iron sucrose group (n=33). We captured data on infusion-related reactions, history of asthma/inflammatory bowel disease/> 2 drug allergies, overall and ≥ 2 g/dL hemoglobin increase, and treatment cost. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety and efficacy parameters. An unpaired t-test was used to calculate statistical significance of the cost.

RESULTS

We found that 82.7% of the patients who received LMWID had an increase in hemoglobin vs. 60.6% in the iron sucrose group. 48.3% of patients in LMWID had ≥ 2 hemoglobin increases vs. 27.3% in the iron sucrose group. The cost for LMWID administration was $2016.10, compared to $2315.40 for administration of IV iron sucrose cost. Two-tailed p value < 0.0001 indicating the observed difference to be statistically significant. No infusion reactions were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center analysis, IV LMWID administered provided comparable safety, and improved effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness to iron sucrose.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurs when malignant cells rapidly break down. This may lead to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and/or hypocalcemia. Rasburicase reduces uric acid in cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy. However, caution is required as rasburicase is contraindicated for patients with glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to the increased risk of hemolysis. G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (AA), affecting approximately 12% of this population. The FDA recommends testing for G6PD deficiency in higher risk groups before administering rasburicase.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2023 addressing appropriate use of rasburicase and incidence of G6PD deficiency and hemolysis. Appropriate use was defined by: TLS (2 or more: uric acid ≥ 8 or 25% increase; K+ ≥ 6.0 or 25% increase; Phos > 4.5mg/dL, or 25% increase; or calcium < 7, or 25% decrease, from baseline) or at high risk for TLS (CLL: venetoclax use w/lymph node > 10cm or WBC > 25k and elevated uric acid; AML: WBC > 100k; ALL: WBC > 100k and LDH 2x ULN; Burkitt lymphoma: LDH 2x ULN).

RESULTS

50 patients were identified who received rasburicase. 21/50 (42%) did not meet criteria for appropriate use. 44/50 (88%) underwent G6PD testing. The average time from G6PD testing order to obtaining the results was 3.4 days; 18/50 patients (36%) had G6PD resulted prior to rasburicase administration, and 26 patients (52%) received rasburicase prior to G6PD results. Overall, 13/50 (26%) were AA. Of the AA pts, 12/13 (92%) were tested for G6PD. Of these 12, 1/12 was found to be G6PD deficient and this patient experienced G6PD deficiency-induced hemolysis after rasburicase. None of the non-AA pts (0/31) tested were found to be G6PD deficient.

IMPLICATIONS

There was a high (42%) level of inappropriate use of rasburicase. G6PD deficiency was uncommon and only found in the AA population. To reduce inappropriate use, rasburicase orders will be restricted to medical oncology. G6PD testing will be limited to AA pts, with pathology to develop a rapid turnaround time for results prior to rasburicase administration to prevent hemolysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurs when malignant cells rapidly break down. This may lead to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and/or hypocalcemia. Rasburicase reduces uric acid in cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy. However, caution is required as rasburicase is contraindicated for patients with glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to the increased risk of hemolysis. G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (AA), affecting approximately 12% of this population. The FDA recommends testing for G6PD deficiency in higher risk groups before administering rasburicase.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2023 addressing appropriate use of rasburicase and incidence of G6PD deficiency and hemolysis. Appropriate use was defined by: TLS (2 or more: uric acid ≥ 8 or 25% increase; K+ ≥ 6.0 or 25% increase; Phos > 4.5mg/dL, or 25% increase; or calcium < 7, or 25% decrease, from baseline) or at high risk for TLS (CLL: venetoclax use w/lymph node > 10cm or WBC > 25k and elevated uric acid; AML: WBC > 100k; ALL: WBC > 100k and LDH 2x ULN; Burkitt lymphoma: LDH 2x ULN).

RESULTS

50 patients were identified who received rasburicase. 21/50 (42%) did not meet criteria for appropriate use. 44/50 (88%) underwent G6PD testing. The average time from G6PD testing order to obtaining the results was 3.4 days; 18/50 patients (36%) had G6PD resulted prior to rasburicase administration, and 26 patients (52%) received rasburicase prior to G6PD results. Overall, 13/50 (26%) were AA. Of the AA pts, 12/13 (92%) were tested for G6PD. Of these 12, 1/12 was found to be G6PD deficient and this patient experienced G6PD deficiency-induced hemolysis after rasburicase. None of the non-AA pts (0/31) tested were found to be G6PD deficient.

IMPLICATIONS

There was a high (42%) level of inappropriate use of rasburicase. G6PD deficiency was uncommon and only found in the AA population. To reduce inappropriate use, rasburicase orders will be restricted to medical oncology. G6PD testing will be limited to AA pts, with pathology to develop a rapid turnaround time for results prior to rasburicase administration to prevent hemolysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurs when malignant cells rapidly break down. This may lead to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and/or hypocalcemia. Rasburicase reduces uric acid in cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy. However, caution is required as rasburicase is contraindicated for patients with glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to the increased risk of hemolysis. G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (AA), affecting approximately 12% of this population. The FDA recommends testing for G6PD deficiency in higher risk groups before administering rasburicase.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2023 addressing appropriate use of rasburicase and incidence of G6PD deficiency and hemolysis. Appropriate use was defined by: TLS (2 or more: uric acid ≥ 8 or 25% increase; K+ ≥ 6.0 or 25% increase; Phos > 4.5mg/dL, or 25% increase; or calcium < 7, or 25% decrease, from baseline) or at high risk for TLS (CLL: venetoclax use w/lymph node > 10cm or WBC > 25k and elevated uric acid; AML: WBC > 100k; ALL: WBC > 100k and LDH 2x ULN; Burkitt lymphoma: LDH 2x ULN).

RESULTS

50 patients were identified who received rasburicase. 21/50 (42%) did not meet criteria for appropriate use. 44/50 (88%) underwent G6PD testing. The average time from G6PD testing order to obtaining the results was 3.4 days; 18/50 patients (36%) had G6PD resulted prior to rasburicase administration, and 26 patients (52%) received rasburicase prior to G6PD results. Overall, 13/50 (26%) were AA. Of the AA pts, 12/13 (92%) were tested for G6PD. Of these 12, 1/12 was found to be G6PD deficient and this patient experienced G6PD deficiency-induced hemolysis after rasburicase. None of the non-AA pts (0/31) tested were found to be G6PD deficient.

IMPLICATIONS

There was a high (42%) level of inappropriate use of rasburicase. G6PD deficiency was uncommon and only found in the AA population. To reduce inappropriate use, rasburicase orders will be restricted to medical oncology. G6PD testing will be limited to AA pts, with pathology to develop a rapid turnaround time for results prior to rasburicase administration to prevent hemolysis.

BACKGROUND

Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in myeloma has been shown to be a strong prognostic marker for progression-free and overall survival. Limited data suggest MRD results may also be useful for therapy discontinuation decisions. The clonoSEQ Assay utilizes next generation sequencing involving a bone marrow sample, obtained at the time of diagnosis, to identify patient-specific sequence(s).

DISCUSSION

The same methodology is then applied later to assess for MRD. Although widely adopted at most US academic centers, there has been limited use of MRD across VA centers. In 2022 the Cleveland Louis Stokes VAMC partnered with Adaptive Biotechnologies to develop a process for MRD/clonoSEQ testing in myeloma pts. Hematology, Pathology, Medicine, Administration and Adaptive Biotechnologies representatives met to develop a streamlined process for ordering, sample procurement, billing and result documentation. In 5/2022 the 1st specimen was sent. EQUATE is a national cooperative group trial requiring baseline clono- SEQ testing with a positive sequence ID. Daratumumab hyaluronidase (part of standard treatment) is provided to the institution at no cost on the trial but otherwise would cost the VA $5,797.38/dose. clonoSEQ costs VA $1950/test. There have been 14 specimens sent involving 12 pts: 12 baseline marrow and 2 for MRD (posttransplant). All of the baseline specimens were found to have an identifiable sequence. Both of the MRD tracking specimens were positive. The average turnaround time for clonoSEQ results was 13.2 days (range 7 to 18 days). 4 of the 12 pts with a positive initial clonoSEQ ID qualified for the EQUATE trial but would not have been deemed eligible without the baseline clonoSEQ results. 2 of these pts have enrolled on the trial and started treatment. Costs for 14 clonoSEQ tests: $27,300. Estimated cost savings for the 2 pts enrolled onto EQUATE: $127, 542.36/pt/year= $255,084.72/year. Overall cost savings: $227,784.72.

CONCLUSIONS

An efficient process for baseline and post-treatment (MRD) clonoSEQ testing in myeloma pts was developed. Although expensive, use of this test resulted in significant overall cost savings by allowing enrollment onto a clinical trial. In addition, if studies determine that negative MRD results can guide therapeutic decisions, use of clonoSEQ testing may result in further benefits.

BACKGROUND

Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in myeloma has been shown to be a strong prognostic marker for progression-free and overall survival. Limited data suggest MRD results may also be useful for therapy discontinuation decisions. The clonoSEQ Assay utilizes next generation sequencing involving a bone marrow sample, obtained at the time of diagnosis, to identify patient-specific sequence(s).

DISCUSSION

The same methodology is then applied later to assess for MRD. Although widely adopted at most US academic centers, there has been limited use of MRD across VA centers. In 2022 the Cleveland Louis Stokes VAMC partnered with Adaptive Biotechnologies to develop a process for MRD/clonoSEQ testing in myeloma pts. Hematology, Pathology, Medicine, Administration and Adaptive Biotechnologies representatives met to develop a streamlined process for ordering, sample procurement, billing and result documentation. In 5/2022 the 1st specimen was sent. EQUATE is a national cooperative group trial requiring baseline clono- SEQ testing with a positive sequence ID. Daratumumab hyaluronidase (part of standard treatment) is provided to the institution at no cost on the trial but otherwise would cost the VA $5,797.38/dose. clonoSEQ costs VA $1950/test. There have been 14 specimens sent involving 12 pts: 12 baseline marrow and 2 for MRD (posttransplant). All of the baseline specimens were found to have an identifiable sequence. Both of the MRD tracking specimens were positive. The average turnaround time for clonoSEQ results was 13.2 days (range 7 to 18 days). 4 of the 12 pts with a positive initial clonoSEQ ID qualified for the EQUATE trial but would not have been deemed eligible without the baseline clonoSEQ results. 2 of these pts have enrolled on the trial and started treatment. Costs for 14 clonoSEQ tests: $27,300. Estimated cost savings for the 2 pts enrolled onto EQUATE: $127, 542.36/pt/year= $255,084.72/year. Overall cost savings: $227,784.72.

CONCLUSIONS

An efficient process for baseline and post-treatment (MRD) clonoSEQ testing in myeloma pts was developed. Although expensive, use of this test resulted in significant overall cost savings by allowing enrollment onto a clinical trial. In addition, if studies determine that negative MRD results can guide therapeutic decisions, use of clonoSEQ testing may result in further benefits.

BACKGROUND

Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in myeloma has been shown to be a strong prognostic marker for progression-free and overall survival. Limited data suggest MRD results may also be useful for therapy discontinuation decisions. The clonoSEQ Assay utilizes next generation sequencing involving a bone marrow sample, obtained at the time of diagnosis, to identify patient-specific sequence(s).

DISCUSSION

The same methodology is then applied later to assess for MRD. Although widely adopted at most US academic centers, there has been limited use of MRD across VA centers. In 2022 the Cleveland Louis Stokes VAMC partnered with Adaptive Biotechnologies to develop a process for MRD/clonoSEQ testing in myeloma pts. Hematology, Pathology, Medicine, Administration and Adaptive Biotechnologies representatives met to develop a streamlined process for ordering, sample procurement, billing and result documentation. In 5/2022 the 1st specimen was sent. EQUATE is a national cooperative group trial requiring baseline clono- SEQ testing with a positive sequence ID. Daratumumab hyaluronidase (part of standard treatment) is provided to the institution at no cost on the trial but otherwise would cost the VA $5,797.38/dose. clonoSEQ costs VA $1950/test. There have been 14 specimens sent involving 12 pts: 12 baseline marrow and 2 for MRD (posttransplant). All of the baseline specimens were found to have an identifiable sequence. Both of the MRD tracking specimens were positive. The average turnaround time for clonoSEQ results was 13.2 days (range 7 to 18 days). 4 of the 12 pts with a positive initial clonoSEQ ID qualified for the EQUATE trial but would not have been deemed eligible without the baseline clonoSEQ results. 2 of these pts have enrolled on the trial and started treatment. Costs for 14 clonoSEQ tests: $27,300. Estimated cost savings for the 2 pts enrolled onto EQUATE: $127, 542.36/pt/year= $255,084.72/year. Overall cost savings: $227,784.72.

CONCLUSIONS

An efficient process for baseline and post-treatment (MRD) clonoSEQ testing in myeloma pts was developed. Although expensive, use of this test resulted in significant overall cost savings by allowing enrollment onto a clinical trial. In addition, if studies determine that negative MRD results can guide therapeutic decisions, use of clonoSEQ testing may result in further benefits.

A single dose of an experimental psilocybin drug offered significant sustained improvement in symptoms and disability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over a 6-week period, results of a study suggest.

The randomized, phase 2 trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States and is the latest to demonstrate the psychedelic drug’s potential as a treatment for depression.

The project was funded by Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization based in Madison, Wisc. The institute issued a press statement, but researchers did not comment further on the findings.

“As the largest and most rigorous study conducted across a wide spectrum of individuals with major depressive disorder, the results show promise for all people struggling with this condition,” lead author Charles Raison, MD, director of clinical and translational research at Usona, said in the statement. 

The 34 coauthors on the study are affiliated with public universities, research centers, and private companies. Eight of the investigators are identified as employees of Usona Institute.

Declining further comment, an institute spokesperson told this news organization that, “Usona has chosen the approach of no interviews, and this applies for all coauthors.”

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Largest study to date

Usona’s investigational psilocybin drug has been granted a breakthrough designation by the Food and Drug Administration, a process designed to speed drug development and review.

Previous smaller studies have suggested a rapid antidepressant response with psilocybin, but they have been small, unblinded, and have had short duration of follow-up, they write. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial is the largest study of psilocybin for depression to date, the researchers note.

It included 104 adults aged 21-65 years with MDD who had a current depressive episode of at least 60 days and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 28 or more at baseline.

Participants had to be free of psychedelic drugs for at least 5 years, have had no active suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in the prior 12 months, no personal or first-degree family history of psychosis or mania, and no history of moderate/severe alcohol or drug use disorder.

Before the study, participants had a 7- to 35-day screening period for psychiatric medication tapering, underwent baseline assessments, and received 6-8 hours of preparation with two facilitators who would be with them during dosing.

Dosing occurred within 7 days of baseline assessments. During the 6- to 8-hour session, participants received either a single 25-mg oral dose of psilocybin or 100-mg dose of niacin. One participant randomly assigned to receive psilocybin received the incorrect treatment, resulting in 50 participants receiving psilocybin and 54 receiving niacin.

Participants returned the next day, the next week, and then every 2 weeks for assessments, for a follow-up of 6 weeks.
 

Psychosocial support

Participants who received psilocybin reported significantly greater improvements in MDD symptoms, compared with those who received niacin. MADRS scores – a scale from 0 to 60 where higher scores indicate more severe depression – showed greater reductions with treatment vs. placebo at 8 days (mean difference, −12.0; 95% confidence interval, −16.6 to −7.4; P < .001), and at day 43 (mean difference, −12.3; 95% CI, −17.5 to −7.2; P < .001).

More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained depressive symptom response (42% vs. 11%; P = .002) and more improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale score, which measures functional disability, 43 days after treatment (P < .001).

The effects persisted through the end of the study, although the differences between groups were no longer significant by week 6.

“This is another exciting piece of evidence that adds to the current literature regarding the potential efficacy of psilocybin for the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly depression,” said Greg Fonzo, MD, codirector of the Center for Psychedelic Research and Therapy at the University of Texas at Austin, who commented on the findings.

Significantly more people in the psilocybin group reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE, 82% vs. 44%), although most were mild to moderate. Headache and nausea were the most common side effects and most resolved within 1 day of dosing.

While those numbers are high, Dr. Fonzo said they’re not out of line with AEs reported in other studies.

“Particularly with the types of adverse events reported here, like headache and nausea, those are things you would typically expect to see in this treatment,” said Dr. Fonzo, who was not part of the research.

“But it is high, and it underscores that this is not a treatment without certain risks, even though it was good that they were primarily mild in severity,” he added.
 

A ‘stepping stone’ to FDA approval?

The use of tools to measure disability in addition to symptoms of depression severity is a strength of the study, Dr. Fonzo added. The use of an active comparator and the 6-week follow-up also offer something new over previous studies.

Despite the longer follow up, questions remain about the durability of response, something only a longer study could answer, Dr. Fonzo said. The small and homogeneous sample-size are also a concern. Nearly 90% of participants were White, and more than half had an income of $75,000 a year or higher.

“It’s another stepping stone in the process to FDA approval, but the next step in that process would be much larger phase 3 trials that would have much larger samples, a longer follow-up, and hopefully have a more inclusive swath of the population,” Dr. Fonzo said.

But perhaps one of the most significant limitations is the use of niacin as an active comparator, said Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The use of an agent that doesn’t produce effects similar to those expected from a psychedelic introduced the potential for functional unblinding, Dr. Alexander said. Investigators did not ask participants to guess whether they received psilocybin or niacin, so the quality of the blinding was not assessed in the study.

“We’d like to see the use of [an] active comparator that might have a chance of obscuring to people as to whether they’ve been randomized to the treatment arm or control arm,” said Dr. Alexander, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Why not use a benzodiazepine or another drug that produces a transient euphoria that would better obscure whether or not people were receiving the psilocybin?”

The authors of an accompanying editorial shared these concerns, also noting that the study included “a significant number of patients who did not respond to therapy.”

“It is important to analyze and understand adverse outcomes in psychedelic trials and conduct longitudinal studies to determine how sustained the effects will be and what may initiate a recrudescence of symptoms,” write Rachel Yehuda, PhD, and Amy Lehrner, PhD, both of the Peters VA Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Future studies will help identify who is most likely to benefit from psychedelics, whether booster or repeated treatment is safe and beneficial, and what the optimal dose and therapeutic frameworks are.”

A long-term follow-up of the current trial was terminated last year because of low enrollment. The spokesperson with Usona Institute did not respond to questions about that study, and the institute’s statement only added that preparations are underway to launch another study that “will provide additional safety and efficacy data to support submission of a new drug application to the FDA.”

Usona published its manufacturing process that it used to synthesize psilocybin in an open-access journal and signed a statement on “open science and open praxis” with psilocybin and similar substances, which appears on their website. That statement was signed by 31 research and service organizations around the world and nearly 150 scientists, scholars, and practitioners.

The study was funded by Usona Institute. Dr. Raison reported receiving personal fees from Usona Institute and grants to Usona Institute from Dr. Bronner’s All-One, Fournier Family Foundation, Good Ventures, Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, Turnbull Family Foundation, and William A. Linton during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Novartis, Sage/Biogen, Emory Healthcare, and Vail Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonzo and Dr. Alexander report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yehuda reports receiving nonfinancial support from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Public Benefit (MAPS PBC) and grants from COMPASS Pathways. Dr. Lehrner is an investigator on trials sponsored by MAPS PBC and COMPASS Pathways.

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

A single dose of an experimental psilocybin drug offered significant sustained improvement in symptoms and disability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over a 6-week period, results of a study suggest.

The randomized, phase 2 trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States and is the latest to demonstrate the psychedelic drug’s potential as a treatment for depression.

The project was funded by Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization based in Madison, Wisc. The institute issued a press statement, but researchers did not comment further on the findings.

“As the largest and most rigorous study conducted across a wide spectrum of individuals with major depressive disorder, the results show promise for all people struggling with this condition,” lead author Charles Raison, MD, director of clinical and translational research at Usona, said in the statement. 

The 34 coauthors on the study are affiliated with public universities, research centers, and private companies. Eight of the investigators are identified as employees of Usona Institute.

Declining further comment, an institute spokesperson told this news organization that, “Usona has chosen the approach of no interviews, and this applies for all coauthors.”

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Largest study to date

Usona’s investigational psilocybin drug has been granted a breakthrough designation by the Food and Drug Administration, a process designed to speed drug development and review.

Previous smaller studies have suggested a rapid antidepressant response with psilocybin, but they have been small, unblinded, and have had short duration of follow-up, they write. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial is the largest study of psilocybin for depression to date, the researchers note.

It included 104 adults aged 21-65 years with MDD who had a current depressive episode of at least 60 days and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 28 or more at baseline.

Participants had to be free of psychedelic drugs for at least 5 years, have had no active suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in the prior 12 months, no personal or first-degree family history of psychosis or mania, and no history of moderate/severe alcohol or drug use disorder.

Before the study, participants had a 7- to 35-day screening period for psychiatric medication tapering, underwent baseline assessments, and received 6-8 hours of preparation with two facilitators who would be with them during dosing.

Dosing occurred within 7 days of baseline assessments. During the 6- to 8-hour session, participants received either a single 25-mg oral dose of psilocybin or 100-mg dose of niacin. One participant randomly assigned to receive psilocybin received the incorrect treatment, resulting in 50 participants receiving psilocybin and 54 receiving niacin.

Participants returned the next day, the next week, and then every 2 weeks for assessments, for a follow-up of 6 weeks.
 

Psychosocial support

Participants who received psilocybin reported significantly greater improvements in MDD symptoms, compared with those who received niacin. MADRS scores – a scale from 0 to 60 where higher scores indicate more severe depression – showed greater reductions with treatment vs. placebo at 8 days (mean difference, −12.0; 95% confidence interval, −16.6 to −7.4; P < .001), and at day 43 (mean difference, −12.3; 95% CI, −17.5 to −7.2; P < .001).

More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained depressive symptom response (42% vs. 11%; P = .002) and more improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale score, which measures functional disability, 43 days after treatment (P < .001).

The effects persisted through the end of the study, although the differences between groups were no longer significant by week 6.

“This is another exciting piece of evidence that adds to the current literature regarding the potential efficacy of psilocybin for the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly depression,” said Greg Fonzo, MD, codirector of the Center for Psychedelic Research and Therapy at the University of Texas at Austin, who commented on the findings.

Significantly more people in the psilocybin group reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE, 82% vs. 44%), although most were mild to moderate. Headache and nausea were the most common side effects and most resolved within 1 day of dosing.

While those numbers are high, Dr. Fonzo said they’re not out of line with AEs reported in other studies.

“Particularly with the types of adverse events reported here, like headache and nausea, those are things you would typically expect to see in this treatment,” said Dr. Fonzo, who was not part of the research.

“But it is high, and it underscores that this is not a treatment without certain risks, even though it was good that they were primarily mild in severity,” he added.
 

A ‘stepping stone’ to FDA approval?

The use of tools to measure disability in addition to symptoms of depression severity is a strength of the study, Dr. Fonzo added. The use of an active comparator and the 6-week follow-up also offer something new over previous studies.

Despite the longer follow up, questions remain about the durability of response, something only a longer study could answer, Dr. Fonzo said. The small and homogeneous sample-size are also a concern. Nearly 90% of participants were White, and more than half had an income of $75,000 a year or higher.

“It’s another stepping stone in the process to FDA approval, but the next step in that process would be much larger phase 3 trials that would have much larger samples, a longer follow-up, and hopefully have a more inclusive swath of the population,” Dr. Fonzo said.

But perhaps one of the most significant limitations is the use of niacin as an active comparator, said Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The use of an agent that doesn’t produce effects similar to those expected from a psychedelic introduced the potential for functional unblinding, Dr. Alexander said. Investigators did not ask participants to guess whether they received psilocybin or niacin, so the quality of the blinding was not assessed in the study.

“We’d like to see the use of [an] active comparator that might have a chance of obscuring to people as to whether they’ve been randomized to the treatment arm or control arm,” said Dr. Alexander, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Why not use a benzodiazepine or another drug that produces a transient euphoria that would better obscure whether or not people were receiving the psilocybin?”

The authors of an accompanying editorial shared these concerns, also noting that the study included “a significant number of patients who did not respond to therapy.”

“It is important to analyze and understand adverse outcomes in psychedelic trials and conduct longitudinal studies to determine how sustained the effects will be and what may initiate a recrudescence of symptoms,” write Rachel Yehuda, PhD, and Amy Lehrner, PhD, both of the Peters VA Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Future studies will help identify who is most likely to benefit from psychedelics, whether booster or repeated treatment is safe and beneficial, and what the optimal dose and therapeutic frameworks are.”

A long-term follow-up of the current trial was terminated last year because of low enrollment. The spokesperson with Usona Institute did not respond to questions about that study, and the institute’s statement only added that preparations are underway to launch another study that “will provide additional safety and efficacy data to support submission of a new drug application to the FDA.”

Usona published its manufacturing process that it used to synthesize psilocybin in an open-access journal and signed a statement on “open science and open praxis” with psilocybin and similar substances, which appears on their website. That statement was signed by 31 research and service organizations around the world and nearly 150 scientists, scholars, and practitioners.

The study was funded by Usona Institute. Dr. Raison reported receiving personal fees from Usona Institute and grants to Usona Institute from Dr. Bronner’s All-One, Fournier Family Foundation, Good Ventures, Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, Turnbull Family Foundation, and William A. Linton during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Novartis, Sage/Biogen, Emory Healthcare, and Vail Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonzo and Dr. Alexander report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yehuda reports receiving nonfinancial support from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Public Benefit (MAPS PBC) and grants from COMPASS Pathways. Dr. Lehrner is an investigator on trials sponsored by MAPS PBC and COMPASS Pathways.

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

A single dose of an experimental psilocybin drug offered significant sustained improvement in symptoms and disability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over a 6-week period, results of a study suggest.

The randomized, phase 2 trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States and is the latest to demonstrate the psychedelic drug’s potential as a treatment for depression.

The project was funded by Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization based in Madison, Wisc. The institute issued a press statement, but researchers did not comment further on the findings.

“As the largest and most rigorous study conducted across a wide spectrum of individuals with major depressive disorder, the results show promise for all people struggling with this condition,” lead author Charles Raison, MD, director of clinical and translational research at Usona, said in the statement. 

The 34 coauthors on the study are affiliated with public universities, research centers, and private companies. Eight of the investigators are identified as employees of Usona Institute.

Declining further comment, an institute spokesperson told this news organization that, “Usona has chosen the approach of no interviews, and this applies for all coauthors.”

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Largest study to date

Usona’s investigational psilocybin drug has been granted a breakthrough designation by the Food and Drug Administration, a process designed to speed drug development and review.

Previous smaller studies have suggested a rapid antidepressant response with psilocybin, but they have been small, unblinded, and have had short duration of follow-up, they write. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial is the largest study of psilocybin for depression to date, the researchers note.

It included 104 adults aged 21-65 years with MDD who had a current depressive episode of at least 60 days and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 28 or more at baseline.

Participants had to be free of psychedelic drugs for at least 5 years, have had no active suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in the prior 12 months, no personal or first-degree family history of psychosis or mania, and no history of moderate/severe alcohol or drug use disorder.

Before the study, participants had a 7- to 35-day screening period for psychiatric medication tapering, underwent baseline assessments, and received 6-8 hours of preparation with two facilitators who would be with them during dosing.

Dosing occurred within 7 days of baseline assessments. During the 6- to 8-hour session, participants received either a single 25-mg oral dose of psilocybin or 100-mg dose of niacin. One participant randomly assigned to receive psilocybin received the incorrect treatment, resulting in 50 participants receiving psilocybin and 54 receiving niacin.

Participants returned the next day, the next week, and then every 2 weeks for assessments, for a follow-up of 6 weeks.
 

Psychosocial support

Participants who received psilocybin reported significantly greater improvements in MDD symptoms, compared with those who received niacin. MADRS scores – a scale from 0 to 60 where higher scores indicate more severe depression – showed greater reductions with treatment vs. placebo at 8 days (mean difference, −12.0; 95% confidence interval, −16.6 to −7.4; P < .001), and at day 43 (mean difference, −12.3; 95% CI, −17.5 to −7.2; P < .001).

More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained depressive symptom response (42% vs. 11%; P = .002) and more improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale score, which measures functional disability, 43 days after treatment (P < .001).

The effects persisted through the end of the study, although the differences between groups were no longer significant by week 6.

“This is another exciting piece of evidence that adds to the current literature regarding the potential efficacy of psilocybin for the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly depression,” said Greg Fonzo, MD, codirector of the Center for Psychedelic Research and Therapy at the University of Texas at Austin, who commented on the findings.

Significantly more people in the psilocybin group reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE, 82% vs. 44%), although most were mild to moderate. Headache and nausea were the most common side effects and most resolved within 1 day of dosing.

While those numbers are high, Dr. Fonzo said they’re not out of line with AEs reported in other studies.

“Particularly with the types of adverse events reported here, like headache and nausea, those are things you would typically expect to see in this treatment,” said Dr. Fonzo, who was not part of the research.

“But it is high, and it underscores that this is not a treatment without certain risks, even though it was good that they were primarily mild in severity,” he added.
 

A ‘stepping stone’ to FDA approval?

The use of tools to measure disability in addition to symptoms of depression severity is a strength of the study, Dr. Fonzo added. The use of an active comparator and the 6-week follow-up also offer something new over previous studies.

Despite the longer follow up, questions remain about the durability of response, something only a longer study could answer, Dr. Fonzo said. The small and homogeneous sample-size are also a concern. Nearly 90% of participants were White, and more than half had an income of $75,000 a year or higher.

“It’s another stepping stone in the process to FDA approval, but the next step in that process would be much larger phase 3 trials that would have much larger samples, a longer follow-up, and hopefully have a more inclusive swath of the population,” Dr. Fonzo said.

But perhaps one of the most significant limitations is the use of niacin as an active comparator, said Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The use of an agent that doesn’t produce effects similar to those expected from a psychedelic introduced the potential for functional unblinding, Dr. Alexander said. Investigators did not ask participants to guess whether they received psilocybin or niacin, so the quality of the blinding was not assessed in the study.

“We’d like to see the use of [an] active comparator that might have a chance of obscuring to people as to whether they’ve been randomized to the treatment arm or control arm,” said Dr. Alexander, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Why not use a benzodiazepine or another drug that produces a transient euphoria that would better obscure whether or not people were receiving the psilocybin?”

The authors of an accompanying editorial shared these concerns, also noting that the study included “a significant number of patients who did not respond to therapy.”

“It is important to analyze and understand adverse outcomes in psychedelic trials and conduct longitudinal studies to determine how sustained the effects will be and what may initiate a recrudescence of symptoms,” write Rachel Yehuda, PhD, and Amy Lehrner, PhD, both of the Peters VA Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Future studies will help identify who is most likely to benefit from psychedelics, whether booster or repeated treatment is safe and beneficial, and what the optimal dose and therapeutic frameworks are.”

A long-term follow-up of the current trial was terminated last year because of low enrollment. The spokesperson with Usona Institute did not respond to questions about that study, and the institute’s statement only added that preparations are underway to launch another study that “will provide additional safety and efficacy data to support submission of a new drug application to the FDA.”

Usona published its manufacturing process that it used to synthesize psilocybin in an open-access journal and signed a statement on “open science and open praxis” with psilocybin and similar substances, which appears on their website. That statement was signed by 31 research and service organizations around the world and nearly 150 scientists, scholars, and practitioners.

The study was funded by Usona Institute. Dr. Raison reported receiving personal fees from Usona Institute and grants to Usona Institute from Dr. Bronner’s All-One, Fournier Family Foundation, Good Ventures, Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, Turnbull Family Foundation, and William A. Linton during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Novartis, Sage/Biogen, Emory Healthcare, and Vail Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonzo and Dr. Alexander report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yehuda reports receiving nonfinancial support from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Public Benefit (MAPS PBC) and grants from COMPASS Pathways. Dr. Lehrner is an investigator on trials sponsored by MAPS PBC and COMPASS Pathways.

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

AMSTERDAM – Dropping aspirin and using low-dose prasugrel (Effient) alone in the initial month of treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) failed to lower bleeding risk, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and there was a signal of possible harm in terms of increased subacute stent thrombosis, in the STOPDAPT-3 trial.

“Therefore, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor should still remain the standard strategy at least for 1 month after PCI,” said the trial’s lead investigator Masahiro Natsuaki, MD, Saga (Japan) University.

The STOPDAPT-3 trial was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Designated discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Foundation, Lugano, Switzerland, explained that the current wisdom before this study was that aspirin withdrawal in the postacute phase after PCI (after 1 month of DAPT onwards) is associated with lower bleeding risk without affecting ischemic risk, but this STOPDAPT-3 trial is the first to look at the idea of not giving aspirin at all.

“This study is a well-designed, well-conducted trial, and the results are very clear: there is no benefit of dropping aspirin in this early period with respect to major bleeding, and at the same time there was some signal for possible harm,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

He pointed out that the possible harm was not related to the coprimary cardiovascular composite endpoint, which did fulfill noninferiority, although he acknowledged the “generous” noninferiority margin.

Rather, the possible harm was related to an increase in subacute stent thrombosis, which was three times higher in the nonaspirin group (0.58% vs. 0.17%). 

“While these absolute event rates are extremely low, they are unquestionably higher in the nonaspirin group,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Natsuaki explained that very short durations (1-3 months) of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy has been shown to reduce bleeding events without increasing cardiovascular events, compared with longer durations of DAPT after PCI using drug-eluting stents.

However, the incidence of major bleeding events within the 1-month mandatory DAPT period after PCI remains high in clinical practice, particularly in patients with ACS or high bleeding risk.

In single-arm studies, use of prasugrel or ticagrelor (Brilinta) alone following new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation was not associated with any stent thrombosis in selected low-risk patients with or without ACS, and it is thought that removing aspirin from the DAPT regimen might reduce bleeding events early after PCI without compromising the risk of cardiovascular events. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy has not been proven in randomized trials.
 

STOPDAPT-3 trial

STOPDAPT-3 investigated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel monotherapy compared with 1-month DAPT with aspirin and prasugrel in Japanese patients with ACS or high bleeding risk undergoing PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents.

The study enrolled 6,002 patients with ACS or high bleeding risk who were randomly assigned to prasugrel monotherapy (3.75 mg/day; the licensed dose in Japan) or to DAPT with aspirin (81-100 mg/day) and prasugrel after a loading dose of prasugrel 20 mg in both groups.

There were two primary endpoints: major bleeding events (defined as BARC type 3 or 5) at 1 month for superiority and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) at 1 month for noninferiority.

The major secondary endpoint was a composite of the coprimary bleeding and cardiovascular endpoints (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding) at 1 month representing net clinical benefit.

Results showed that, at 1 month, the no-aspirin strategy was not superior to DAPT for the coprimary bleeding endpoint, with major bleeding events occurring in 4.47% of the prasugrel monotherapy group versus 4.71% of those on DAPT (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.20).

The prasugrel monotherapy strategy was noninferior to DAPT, although there was a relative 50% margin for the coprimary cardiovascular endpoint. Cardiovascular endpoints occurred in 4.12% of prasugrel monotherapy group versus 3.69% of the DAPT patients (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87-1.45; P for noninferiority = .01).

The major secondary net clinical benefit endpoint occurred in 7.14% patients in the prasugrel monotherapy group and 7.38% patients in the DAPT group, with no between-group difference, indicating a similar effect on net clinical benefit for both groups.

However, there was an excess of any coronary revascularization (1.15% vs. 0.57%) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.71% vs. 0.44%) in the prasugrel monotherapy group compared with the DAPT group, while definite stent thrombosis was not different between the two groups (0.47% vs. 0.37%).

In a subgroup analysis stratified by ACS and non-ACS, the excess risk for cardiovascular events in the no-aspirin group, compared with the DAPT group, was seen in patients with ACS, but not in those without ACS.
 

Future: Focus on dose and timing

In his discussion, Dr. Valgimigli said the implications of this trial for clinical practice were very clear: “Aspirin remains a cornerstone treatment in the periprocedural and acute phase of PCI in patients without indications for oral anticoagulation.” 

However, he added that the study opens several important points for subsequent discussion.

These include the role of type and dose of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy used; specifically, he questioned whether the 3.75-mg dose of prasugrel was enough.

Dr. Valgimigli also pointed out that this study did not include a purely high bleeding risk population, and he said there was still potential to investigate periprocedure versus postprocedure aspirin administration.

The STOPDAPT-3 trial was funded by Abbott Medical Japan. Dr. Natsuaki reported receiving honoraria from Abbott Medical Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bayer.

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

AMSTERDAM – Dropping aspirin and using low-dose prasugrel (Effient) alone in the initial month of treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) failed to lower bleeding risk, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and there was a signal of possible harm in terms of increased subacute stent thrombosis, in the STOPDAPT-3 trial.

“Therefore, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor should still remain the standard strategy at least for 1 month after PCI,” said the trial’s lead investigator Masahiro Natsuaki, MD, Saga (Japan) University.

The STOPDAPT-3 trial was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Designated discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Foundation, Lugano, Switzerland, explained that the current wisdom before this study was that aspirin withdrawal in the postacute phase after PCI (after 1 month of DAPT onwards) is associated with lower bleeding risk without affecting ischemic risk, but this STOPDAPT-3 trial is the first to look at the idea of not giving aspirin at all.

“This study is a well-designed, well-conducted trial, and the results are very clear: there is no benefit of dropping aspirin in this early period with respect to major bleeding, and at the same time there was some signal for possible harm,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

He pointed out that the possible harm was not related to the coprimary cardiovascular composite endpoint, which did fulfill noninferiority, although he acknowledged the “generous” noninferiority margin.

Rather, the possible harm was related to an increase in subacute stent thrombosis, which was three times higher in the nonaspirin group (0.58% vs. 0.17%). 

“While these absolute event rates are extremely low, they are unquestionably higher in the nonaspirin group,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Natsuaki explained that very short durations (1-3 months) of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy has been shown to reduce bleeding events without increasing cardiovascular events, compared with longer durations of DAPT after PCI using drug-eluting stents.

However, the incidence of major bleeding events within the 1-month mandatory DAPT period after PCI remains high in clinical practice, particularly in patients with ACS or high bleeding risk.

In single-arm studies, use of prasugrel or ticagrelor (Brilinta) alone following new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation was not associated with any stent thrombosis in selected low-risk patients with or without ACS, and it is thought that removing aspirin from the DAPT regimen might reduce bleeding events early after PCI without compromising the risk of cardiovascular events. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy has not been proven in randomized trials.
 

STOPDAPT-3 trial

STOPDAPT-3 investigated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel monotherapy compared with 1-month DAPT with aspirin and prasugrel in Japanese patients with ACS or high bleeding risk undergoing PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents.

The study enrolled 6,002 patients with ACS or high bleeding risk who were randomly assigned to prasugrel monotherapy (3.75 mg/day; the licensed dose in Japan) or to DAPT with aspirin (81-100 mg/day) and prasugrel after a loading dose of prasugrel 20 mg in both groups.

There were two primary endpoints: major bleeding events (defined as BARC type 3 or 5) at 1 month for superiority and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) at 1 month for noninferiority.

The major secondary endpoint was a composite of the coprimary bleeding and cardiovascular endpoints (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding) at 1 month representing net clinical benefit.

Results showed that, at 1 month, the no-aspirin strategy was not superior to DAPT for the coprimary bleeding endpoint, with major bleeding events occurring in 4.47% of the prasugrel monotherapy group versus 4.71% of those on DAPT (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.20).

The prasugrel monotherapy strategy was noninferior to DAPT, although there was a relative 50% margin for the coprimary cardiovascular endpoint. Cardiovascular endpoints occurred in 4.12% of prasugrel monotherapy group versus 3.69% of the DAPT patients (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87-1.45; P for noninferiority = .01).

The major secondary net clinical benefit endpoint occurred in 7.14% patients in the prasugrel monotherapy group and 7.38% patients in the DAPT group, with no between-group difference, indicating a similar effect on net clinical benefit for both groups.

However, there was an excess of any coronary revascularization (1.15% vs. 0.57%) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.71% vs. 0.44%) in the prasugrel monotherapy group compared with the DAPT group, while definite stent thrombosis was not different between the two groups (0.47% vs. 0.37%).

In a subgroup analysis stratified by ACS and non-ACS, the excess risk for cardiovascular events in the no-aspirin group, compared with the DAPT group, was seen in patients with ACS, but not in those without ACS.
 

Future: Focus on dose and timing

In his discussion, Dr. Valgimigli said the implications of this trial for clinical practice were very clear: “Aspirin remains a cornerstone treatment in the periprocedural and acute phase of PCI in patients without indications for oral anticoagulation.” 

However, he added that the study opens several important points for subsequent discussion.

These include the role of type and dose of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy used; specifically, he questioned whether the 3.75-mg dose of prasugrel was enough.

Dr. Valgimigli also pointed out that this study did not include a purely high bleeding risk population, and he said there was still potential to investigate periprocedure versus postprocedure aspirin administration.

The STOPDAPT-3 trial was funded by Abbott Medical Japan. Dr. Natsuaki reported receiving honoraria from Abbott Medical Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bayer.

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

AMSTERDAM – Dropping aspirin and using low-dose prasugrel (Effient) alone in the initial month of treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) failed to lower bleeding risk, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and there was a signal of possible harm in terms of increased subacute stent thrombosis, in the STOPDAPT-3 trial.

“Therefore, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor should still remain the standard strategy at least for 1 month after PCI,” said the trial’s lead investigator Masahiro Natsuaki, MD, Saga (Japan) University.

The STOPDAPT-3 trial was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Designated discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Foundation, Lugano, Switzerland, explained that the current wisdom before this study was that aspirin withdrawal in the postacute phase after PCI (after 1 month of DAPT onwards) is associated with lower bleeding risk without affecting ischemic risk, but this STOPDAPT-3 trial is the first to look at the idea of not giving aspirin at all.

“This study is a well-designed, well-conducted trial, and the results are very clear: there is no benefit of dropping aspirin in this early period with respect to major bleeding, and at the same time there was some signal for possible harm,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

He pointed out that the possible harm was not related to the coprimary cardiovascular composite endpoint, which did fulfill noninferiority, although he acknowledged the “generous” noninferiority margin.

Rather, the possible harm was related to an increase in subacute stent thrombosis, which was three times higher in the nonaspirin group (0.58% vs. 0.17%). 

“While these absolute event rates are extremely low, they are unquestionably higher in the nonaspirin group,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Natsuaki explained that very short durations (1-3 months) of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy has been shown to reduce bleeding events without increasing cardiovascular events, compared with longer durations of DAPT after PCI using drug-eluting stents.

However, the incidence of major bleeding events within the 1-month mandatory DAPT period after PCI remains high in clinical practice, particularly in patients with ACS or high bleeding risk.

In single-arm studies, use of prasugrel or ticagrelor (Brilinta) alone following new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation was not associated with any stent thrombosis in selected low-risk patients with or without ACS, and it is thought that removing aspirin from the DAPT regimen might reduce bleeding events early after PCI without compromising the risk of cardiovascular events. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy has not been proven in randomized trials.
 

STOPDAPT-3 trial

STOPDAPT-3 investigated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel monotherapy compared with 1-month DAPT with aspirin and prasugrel in Japanese patients with ACS or high bleeding risk undergoing PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents.

The study enrolled 6,002 patients with ACS or high bleeding risk who were randomly assigned to prasugrel monotherapy (3.75 mg/day; the licensed dose in Japan) or to DAPT with aspirin (81-100 mg/day) and prasugrel after a loading dose of prasugrel 20 mg in both groups.

There were two primary endpoints: major bleeding events (defined as BARC type 3 or 5) at 1 month for superiority and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) at 1 month for noninferiority.

The major secondary endpoint was a composite of the coprimary bleeding and cardiovascular endpoints (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding) at 1 month representing net clinical benefit.

Results showed that, at 1 month, the no-aspirin strategy was not superior to DAPT for the coprimary bleeding endpoint, with major bleeding events occurring in 4.47% of the prasugrel monotherapy group versus 4.71% of those on DAPT (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.20).

The prasugrel monotherapy strategy was noninferior to DAPT, although there was a relative 50% margin for the coprimary cardiovascular endpoint. Cardiovascular endpoints occurred in 4.12% of prasugrel monotherapy group versus 3.69% of the DAPT patients (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87-1.45; P for noninferiority = .01).

The major secondary net clinical benefit endpoint occurred in 7.14% patients in the prasugrel monotherapy group and 7.38% patients in the DAPT group, with no between-group difference, indicating a similar effect on net clinical benefit for both groups.

However, there was an excess of any coronary revascularization (1.15% vs. 0.57%) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.71% vs. 0.44%) in the prasugrel monotherapy group compared with the DAPT group, while definite stent thrombosis was not different between the two groups (0.47% vs. 0.37%).

In a subgroup analysis stratified by ACS and non-ACS, the excess risk for cardiovascular events in the no-aspirin group, compared with the DAPT group, was seen in patients with ACS, but not in those without ACS.
 

Future: Focus on dose and timing

In his discussion, Dr. Valgimigli said the implications of this trial for clinical practice were very clear: “Aspirin remains a cornerstone treatment in the periprocedural and acute phase of PCI in patients without indications for oral anticoagulation.” 

However, he added that the study opens several important points for subsequent discussion.

These include the role of type and dose of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy used; specifically, he questioned whether the 3.75-mg dose of prasugrel was enough.

Dr. Valgimigli also pointed out that this study did not include a purely high bleeding risk population, and he said there was still potential to investigate periprocedure versus postprocedure aspirin administration.

The STOPDAPT-3 trial was funded by Abbott Medical Japan. Dr. Natsuaki reported receiving honoraria from Abbott Medical Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bayer.

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