Pharmacology

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). 

The agency on April 24 approved pivmecillinam tablets to treat women aged 18 years or older with UTIs caused by bacteria susceptible to the drug.

The beta-lactam antibiotic already is approved in Europe and has been used for more than 40 years outside of the United States to treat infections, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Utility Therapeutics. 

The drug is an aminopenicillin that rapidly converts to mecillinam, according to the company, which is marketing the medication as Pivya. 

Pivmecillinam is intended to treat UTIs caused by susceptible isolates of Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. 

Researchers studied the treatment in three clinical trials. One study found women who received the new antibiotic were more likely to have resolution of symptoms and a reduction in bacteria in urine compared with placebo (62% vs 10%). Similar results were seen in a trial that used ibuprofen as the comparator (66% vs 22%). 

In a third study that assessed two oral antibacterial drugs, 72% of women who received pivmecillinam and 76% who received the other drug achieved resolution of symptoms and a reduction in bacteria, according to the FDA. 

The most common side effects of pivmecillinam include nausea and diarrhea.

About half of all women will experience at least one UTI in their lifetime, and the infections are one the top reasons for antibiotic prescriptions, the FDA noted. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). 

The agency on April 24 approved pivmecillinam tablets to treat women aged 18 years or older with UTIs caused by bacteria susceptible to the drug.

The beta-lactam antibiotic already is approved in Europe and has been used for more than 40 years outside of the United States to treat infections, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Utility Therapeutics. 

The drug is an aminopenicillin that rapidly converts to mecillinam, according to the company, which is marketing the medication as Pivya. 

Pivmecillinam is intended to treat UTIs caused by susceptible isolates of Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. 

Researchers studied the treatment in three clinical trials. One study found women who received the new antibiotic were more likely to have resolution of symptoms and a reduction in bacteria in urine compared with placebo (62% vs 10%). Similar results were seen in a trial that used ibuprofen as the comparator (66% vs 22%). 

In a third study that assessed two oral antibacterial drugs, 72% of women who received pivmecillinam and 76% who received the other drug achieved resolution of symptoms and a reduction in bacteria, according to the FDA. 

The most common side effects of pivmecillinam include nausea and diarrhea.

About half of all women will experience at least one UTI in their lifetime, and the infections are one the top reasons for antibiotic prescriptions, the FDA noted. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). 

The agency on April 24 approved pivmecillinam tablets to treat women aged 18 years or older with UTIs caused by bacteria susceptible to the drug.

The beta-lactam antibiotic already is approved in Europe and has been used for more than 40 years outside of the United States to treat infections, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Utility Therapeutics. 

The drug is an aminopenicillin that rapidly converts to mecillinam, according to the company, which is marketing the medication as Pivya. 

Pivmecillinam is intended to treat UTIs caused by susceptible isolates of Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. 

Researchers studied the treatment in three clinical trials. One study found women who received the new antibiotic were more likely to have resolution of symptoms and a reduction in bacteria in urine compared with placebo (62% vs 10%). Similar results were seen in a trial that used ibuprofen as the comparator (66% vs 22%). 

In a third study that assessed two oral antibacterial drugs, 72% of women who received pivmecillinam and 76% who received the other drug achieved resolution of symptoms and a reduction in bacteria, according to the FDA. 

The most common side effects of pivmecillinam include nausea and diarrhea.

About half of all women will experience at least one UTI in their lifetime, and the infections are one the top reasons for antibiotic prescriptions, the FDA noted. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Antidepressants are not associated with an increased risk for dementia, accelerated cognitive decline, or atrophy of white and gray matter in adults with no signs of cognitive impairment, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied 5511 individuals (58% women; mean age, 71 years) from the Rotterdam study, an ongoing prospective population-based cohort study.
• Participants were free from dementia at baseline, and incident dementia was monitored from baseline until 2018 with repeated cognitive assessments using the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and the Geriatric Mental Schedule, as well as MRIs.
• Information on participants’ antidepressant use was extracted from pharmacy records from 1992 until baseline (2002-2008).
• During a mean follow-up of 10 years, 12% of participants developed dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17% of participants had used antidepressants during the roughly 10-year period prior to baseline, and 4.1% were still using antidepressants at baseline.
• Medication use at baseline was more common in women than in men (21% vs 18%), and use increased with age: From 2.1% in participants aged between 45 and 50 years to 4.5% in those older than 80 years.
• After adjustment for confounders, there was no association between antidepressant use and dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.92-1.41), accelerated cognitive decline, or atrophy of white and gray matter.
• However, tricyclic antidepressant use was associated with increased dementia risk (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.83) compared with the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81-1.54).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although prescription of antidepressant medication in older individuals, in particular those with some cognitive impairment, may have acute symptomatic anticholinergic effects that warrant consideration in clinical practice, our results show that long-term antidepressant use does not have lasting effects on cognition or brain health in older adults without indication of cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Frank J. Wolters, MD, of the Department of Epidemiology and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Alzheimer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was the senior author on this study that was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the concern that although exclusion of participants with MMSE < 26 at baseline prevented reversed causation (ie, antidepressant use in response to depression during the prodromal phase of dementia), it may have introduced selection bias by disregarding the effects of antidepressant use prior to baseline and excluding participants with lower education.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was conducted as part of the Netherlands Consortium of Dementia Cohorts, which receives funding in the context of Deltaplan Dementie from ZonMW Memorabel and Alzheimer Nederland. Further funding was also obtained from the Stichting Erasmus Trustfonds. This study was further supported by a 2020 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest or relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Antidepressants are not associated with an increased risk for dementia, accelerated cognitive decline, or atrophy of white and gray matter in adults with no signs of cognitive impairment, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied 5511 individuals (58% women; mean age, 71 years) from the Rotterdam study, an ongoing prospective population-based cohort study.
• Participants were free from dementia at baseline, and incident dementia was monitored from baseline until 2018 with repeated cognitive assessments using the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and the Geriatric Mental Schedule, as well as MRIs.
• Information on participants’ antidepressant use was extracted from pharmacy records from 1992 until baseline (2002-2008).
• During a mean follow-up of 10 years, 12% of participants developed dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17% of participants had used antidepressants during the roughly 10-year period prior to baseline, and 4.1% were still using antidepressants at baseline.
• Medication use at baseline was more common in women than in men (21% vs 18%), and use increased with age: From 2.1% in participants aged between 45 and 50 years to 4.5% in those older than 80 years.
• After adjustment for confounders, there was no association between antidepressant use and dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.92-1.41), accelerated cognitive decline, or atrophy of white and gray matter.
• However, tricyclic antidepressant use was associated with increased dementia risk (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.83) compared with the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81-1.54).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although prescription of antidepressant medication in older individuals, in particular those with some cognitive impairment, may have acute symptomatic anticholinergic effects that warrant consideration in clinical practice, our results show that long-term antidepressant use does not have lasting effects on cognition or brain health in older adults without indication of cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Frank J. Wolters, MD, of the Department of Epidemiology and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Alzheimer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was the senior author on this study that was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the concern that although exclusion of participants with MMSE < 26 at baseline prevented reversed causation (ie, antidepressant use in response to depression during the prodromal phase of dementia), it may have introduced selection bias by disregarding the effects of antidepressant use prior to baseline and excluding participants with lower education.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was conducted as part of the Netherlands Consortium of Dementia Cohorts, which receives funding in the context of Deltaplan Dementie from ZonMW Memorabel and Alzheimer Nederland. Further funding was also obtained from the Stichting Erasmus Trustfonds. This study was further supported by a 2020 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest or relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Antidepressants are not associated with an increased risk for dementia, accelerated cognitive decline, or atrophy of white and gray matter in adults with no signs of cognitive impairment, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied 5511 individuals (58% women; mean age, 71 years) from the Rotterdam study, an ongoing prospective population-based cohort study.
• Participants were free from dementia at baseline, and incident dementia was monitored from baseline until 2018 with repeated cognitive assessments using the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and the Geriatric Mental Schedule, as well as MRIs.
• Information on participants’ antidepressant use was extracted from pharmacy records from 1992 until baseline (2002-2008).
• During a mean follow-up of 10 years, 12% of participants developed dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17% of participants had used antidepressants during the roughly 10-year period prior to baseline, and 4.1% were still using antidepressants at baseline.
• Medication use at baseline was more common in women than in men (21% vs 18%), and use increased with age: From 2.1% in participants aged between 45 and 50 years to 4.5% in those older than 80 years.
• After adjustment for confounders, there was no association between antidepressant use and dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.92-1.41), accelerated cognitive decline, or atrophy of white and gray matter.
• However, tricyclic antidepressant use was associated with increased dementia risk (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.83) compared with the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81-1.54).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although prescription of antidepressant medication in older individuals, in particular those with some cognitive impairment, may have acute symptomatic anticholinergic effects that warrant consideration in clinical practice, our results show that long-term antidepressant use does not have lasting effects on cognition or brain health in older adults without indication of cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Frank J. Wolters, MD, of the Department of Epidemiology and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Alzheimer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was the senior author on this study that was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the concern that although exclusion of participants with MMSE < 26 at baseline prevented reversed causation (ie, antidepressant use in response to depression during the prodromal phase of dementia), it may have introduced selection bias by disregarding the effects of antidepressant use prior to baseline and excluding participants with lower education.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was conducted as part of the Netherlands Consortium of Dementia Cohorts, which receives funding in the context of Deltaplan Dementie from ZonMW Memorabel and Alzheimer Nederland. Further funding was also obtained from the Stichting Erasmus Trustfonds. This study was further supported by a 2020 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest or relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Brigham &amp; Women&#039;s Hospital

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred, of which 141 occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant  (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Georgetown University

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Brigham &amp; Women&#039;s Hospital

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred, of which 141 occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant  (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Georgetown University

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Brigham &amp; Women&#039;s Hospital

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred, of which 141 occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant  (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Georgetown University

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) for adults with hemophilia B, a rare bleeding disorder that affects almost 4 in 100,000 US men.

Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. 

Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022. 

Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector. 

Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.

Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector. 

The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.

Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred. 

Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) for adults with hemophilia B, a rare bleeding disorder that affects almost 4 in 100,000 US men.

Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. 

Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022. 

Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector. 

Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.

Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector. 

The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.

Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred. 

Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) for adults with hemophilia B, a rare bleeding disorder that affects almost 4 in 100,000 US men.

Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. 

Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022. 

Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector. 

Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.

Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector. 

The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.

Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred. 

Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.

The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. One study evaluated people who were using CPAP during sleep, and another study included people who didn’t use the device. People in both studies taking tirzepatide had significant reductions in sleep events and also lost about 20% of body weight. About 70% of people in the studies were men.

The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.

People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.

A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.

Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times. 

Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.

The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. One study evaluated people who were using CPAP during sleep, and another study included people who didn’t use the device. People in both studies taking tirzepatide had significant reductions in sleep events and also lost about 20% of body weight. About 70% of people in the studies were men.

The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.

People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.

A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.

Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times. 

Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.

The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. One study evaluated people who were using CPAP during sleep, and another study included people who didn’t use the device. People in both studies taking tirzepatide had significant reductions in sleep events and also lost about 20% of body weight. About 70% of people in the studies were men.

The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.

People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.

A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.

Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times. 

Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.