Pharmacology

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

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

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

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

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

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

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

AUSTIN, TEX. – Treatment with the anticalcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva Pharmaceuticals) reduces depressive symptoms in patients with migraine and comorbid major depressive disorder, new research shows.

Patients with both conditions who were randomly assigned to receive fremanezumab showed a statistically significant reduction in both the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) and the nine-criteria Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores, compared with matched controls who received placebo.

The results from the UNITE trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Long-standing questions

“It’s been well known for a long time that migraine is comorbid with a number of illnesses, and one of the most common is depression,” said study investigator Richard B. Lipton, a professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the director of the Montefiore Headache Center, New York.

“Do you treat the depression? Do you treat the migraine? Do you independently treat both? Those have been long-standing questions for clinicians,” Dr. Lipton said.

Investigators randomly assigned 330 adults with migraine who were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe MDD (defined as a PHQ-9 score of 10 or greater) to receive 225 mg subcutaneous monthly fremanezumab (n = 164) or placebo (n = 166) for 12 weeks.

The trial continued as an open-label trial for another 12 weeks.

During the double-blind phase of the study, the mean change from baseline in the HAMD-17 score with placebo was –4.6 at week 8 and –5.4 at week 12, compared with –6.0 with fremanezumab at week 8 (P = .0205) and –6.7 at week 12 (P = .0228).

The change from baseline in PHQ-9 total score at week 8 was –5.8 for placebo and –7.1 for fremanezumab (P = .0283). At week 12, the change was –6.3 for placebo versus –7.8 for fremanezumab (P = .0108). These reductions were maintained throughout the open-label period of the trial.

The beneficial effect on depression and migraine demonstrated in the study is interesting on several levels, Dr. Lipton said.

“One, it tells us that if the patient has migraine and depression and you treat with fremanezumab, both disorders get better to a statistically significant degree. That’s critically important,” he said.

“The other thing, and this is actually what I find most interesting about this study, is that fremanezumab doesn’t get into the brain. There are many antimigraine therapies that do, so you can treat a patient with migraine and depression with a tricyclic antidepressant.”

“It may make the migraine better and the depression better, but you don’t know if the benefit in depression comes from the improvement in migraine, because of course the antidepressant works for both conditions. Maybe there are people who would disagree with this, but my interpretation [of the trial results] is that the depression got better because the migraine got better,” he added.

The link between migraine and depression is well established, Dr. Lipton added. Longitudinal studies have shown that people with depression but without migraine develop migraine at increased rates, compared with people with no depression. Conversely, people with migraine but no depression develop depression at increased rates.

“Both disorders may have a common substrate, but I also think many forms of chronic pain lead to depression, and that’s the part we’re making better,” he said.

If fremanezumab has this dual effect on migraine and depression, it is possible that other anti-CGRP drugs will have a similar effect, Dr. Lipton said.

“Honestly, my hope is that other companies that make effective drugs will do similar studies to see if other monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP have the same effect. My guess is that all of them work but until the studies are done, I’m going to use fremanezumab, the one that has been studied, in my patients.”

He added that depression is an important comorbidity of migraine and represents a huge challenge for clinicians. “A lot of headache patients want to know what to do about comorbid anxiety or comorbid depression. I run a headache center in a specialty practice, and when people come in with migraine, they almost always come in with migraine and depression or anxiety or another pain disorder, or something else, and one of the great challenges in the practice is managing these comorbidities,” he said.
 

A bidirectional relationship

The overlap between migraine and depression and anxiety has been known for quite a while, agreed Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, vice chair of academic affairs, department of neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“I think the relationship is generally viewed as bidirectional and causality is uncertain. I still do not think I would assume that any drug that reduces migraine would reduce depression,” said Dr. Loder.

However, she added, the fremanezumab study data are interesting. “The effects of any drug on depression could be due to improvement of migraine or it could be due to some other effect of the treatment on depression. That is what makes these results so intriguing. If the findings are borne out by other studies, it could mean that these treatments would be preferred to those older ones in patients with depression,” Dr. Loder said.

Also commenting on the findings, Huma Sheikh, MD, CEO of NY Neurology Medicine PC, said the study is important because it confirms the strong association between migraine and depression. “Both conditions have similar underlying neurobiological pathophysiologies, and if you are impacting one area in the brain with the CGRP inhibitors, you might also be targeting some of the receptors or pathways that are involved in depression,” Dr. Sheikh said.

The study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lipton reported financial relationships with Teva and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loder and Dr. Sheikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AUSTIN, TEX. – Treatment with the anticalcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva Pharmaceuticals) reduces depressive symptoms in patients with migraine and comorbid major depressive disorder, new research shows.

Patients with both conditions who were randomly assigned to receive fremanezumab showed a statistically significant reduction in both the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) and the nine-criteria Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores, compared with matched controls who received placebo.

The results from the UNITE trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Long-standing questions

“It’s been well known for a long time that migraine is comorbid with a number of illnesses, and one of the most common is depression,” said study investigator Richard B. Lipton, a professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the director of the Montefiore Headache Center, New York.

“Do you treat the depression? Do you treat the migraine? Do you independently treat both? Those have been long-standing questions for clinicians,” Dr. Lipton said.

Investigators randomly assigned 330 adults with migraine who were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe MDD (defined as a PHQ-9 score of 10 or greater) to receive 225 mg subcutaneous monthly fremanezumab (n = 164) or placebo (n = 166) for 12 weeks.

The trial continued as an open-label trial for another 12 weeks.

During the double-blind phase of the study, the mean change from baseline in the HAMD-17 score with placebo was –4.6 at week 8 and –5.4 at week 12, compared with –6.0 with fremanezumab at week 8 (P = .0205) and –6.7 at week 12 (P = .0228).

The change from baseline in PHQ-9 total score at week 8 was –5.8 for placebo and –7.1 for fremanezumab (P = .0283). At week 12, the change was –6.3 for placebo versus –7.8 for fremanezumab (P = .0108). These reductions were maintained throughout the open-label period of the trial.

The beneficial effect on depression and migraine demonstrated in the study is interesting on several levels, Dr. Lipton said.

“One, it tells us that if the patient has migraine and depression and you treat with fremanezumab, both disorders get better to a statistically significant degree. That’s critically important,” he said.

“The other thing, and this is actually what I find most interesting about this study, is that fremanezumab doesn’t get into the brain. There are many antimigraine therapies that do, so you can treat a patient with migraine and depression with a tricyclic antidepressant.”

“It may make the migraine better and the depression better, but you don’t know if the benefit in depression comes from the improvement in migraine, because of course the antidepressant works for both conditions. Maybe there are people who would disagree with this, but my interpretation [of the trial results] is that the depression got better because the migraine got better,” he added.

The link between migraine and depression is well established, Dr. Lipton added. Longitudinal studies have shown that people with depression but without migraine develop migraine at increased rates, compared with people with no depression. Conversely, people with migraine but no depression develop depression at increased rates.

“Both disorders may have a common substrate, but I also think many forms of chronic pain lead to depression, and that’s the part we’re making better,” he said.

If fremanezumab has this dual effect on migraine and depression, it is possible that other anti-CGRP drugs will have a similar effect, Dr. Lipton said.

“Honestly, my hope is that other companies that make effective drugs will do similar studies to see if other monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP have the same effect. My guess is that all of them work but until the studies are done, I’m going to use fremanezumab, the one that has been studied, in my patients.”

He added that depression is an important comorbidity of migraine and represents a huge challenge for clinicians. “A lot of headache patients want to know what to do about comorbid anxiety or comorbid depression. I run a headache center in a specialty practice, and when people come in with migraine, they almost always come in with migraine and depression or anxiety or another pain disorder, or something else, and one of the great challenges in the practice is managing these comorbidities,” he said.
 

A bidirectional relationship

The overlap between migraine and depression and anxiety has been known for quite a while, agreed Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, vice chair of academic affairs, department of neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“I think the relationship is generally viewed as bidirectional and causality is uncertain. I still do not think I would assume that any drug that reduces migraine would reduce depression,” said Dr. Loder.

However, she added, the fremanezumab study data are interesting. “The effects of any drug on depression could be due to improvement of migraine or it could be due to some other effect of the treatment on depression. That is what makes these results so intriguing. If the findings are borne out by other studies, it could mean that these treatments would be preferred to those older ones in patients with depression,” Dr. Loder said.

Also commenting on the findings, Huma Sheikh, MD, CEO of NY Neurology Medicine PC, said the study is important because it confirms the strong association between migraine and depression. “Both conditions have similar underlying neurobiological pathophysiologies, and if you are impacting one area in the brain with the CGRP inhibitors, you might also be targeting some of the receptors or pathways that are involved in depression,” Dr. Sheikh said.

The study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lipton reported financial relationships with Teva and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loder and Dr. Sheikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AUSTIN, TEX. – Treatment with the anticalcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva Pharmaceuticals) reduces depressive symptoms in patients with migraine and comorbid major depressive disorder, new research shows.

Patients with both conditions who were randomly assigned to receive fremanezumab showed a statistically significant reduction in both the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) and the nine-criteria Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores, compared with matched controls who received placebo.

The results from the UNITE trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Long-standing questions

“It’s been well known for a long time that migraine is comorbid with a number of illnesses, and one of the most common is depression,” said study investigator Richard B. Lipton, a professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the director of the Montefiore Headache Center, New York.

“Do you treat the depression? Do you treat the migraine? Do you independently treat both? Those have been long-standing questions for clinicians,” Dr. Lipton said.

Investigators randomly assigned 330 adults with migraine who were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe MDD (defined as a PHQ-9 score of 10 or greater) to receive 225 mg subcutaneous monthly fremanezumab (n = 164) or placebo (n = 166) for 12 weeks.

The trial continued as an open-label trial for another 12 weeks.

During the double-blind phase of the study, the mean change from baseline in the HAMD-17 score with placebo was –4.6 at week 8 and –5.4 at week 12, compared with –6.0 with fremanezumab at week 8 (P = .0205) and –6.7 at week 12 (P = .0228).

The change from baseline in PHQ-9 total score at week 8 was –5.8 for placebo and –7.1 for fremanezumab (P = .0283). At week 12, the change was –6.3 for placebo versus –7.8 for fremanezumab (P = .0108). These reductions were maintained throughout the open-label period of the trial.

The beneficial effect on depression and migraine demonstrated in the study is interesting on several levels, Dr. Lipton said.

“One, it tells us that if the patient has migraine and depression and you treat with fremanezumab, both disorders get better to a statistically significant degree. That’s critically important,” he said.

“The other thing, and this is actually what I find most interesting about this study, is that fremanezumab doesn’t get into the brain. There are many antimigraine therapies that do, so you can treat a patient with migraine and depression with a tricyclic antidepressant.”

“It may make the migraine better and the depression better, but you don’t know if the benefit in depression comes from the improvement in migraine, because of course the antidepressant works for both conditions. Maybe there are people who would disagree with this, but my interpretation [of the trial results] is that the depression got better because the migraine got better,” he added.

The link between migraine and depression is well established, Dr. Lipton added. Longitudinal studies have shown that people with depression but without migraine develop migraine at increased rates, compared with people with no depression. Conversely, people with migraine but no depression develop depression at increased rates.

“Both disorders may have a common substrate, but I also think many forms of chronic pain lead to depression, and that’s the part we’re making better,” he said.

If fremanezumab has this dual effect on migraine and depression, it is possible that other anti-CGRP drugs will have a similar effect, Dr. Lipton said.

“Honestly, my hope is that other companies that make effective drugs will do similar studies to see if other monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP have the same effect. My guess is that all of them work but until the studies are done, I’m going to use fremanezumab, the one that has been studied, in my patients.”

He added that depression is an important comorbidity of migraine and represents a huge challenge for clinicians. “A lot of headache patients want to know what to do about comorbid anxiety or comorbid depression. I run a headache center in a specialty practice, and when people come in with migraine, they almost always come in with migraine and depression or anxiety or another pain disorder, or something else, and one of the great challenges in the practice is managing these comorbidities,” he said.
 

A bidirectional relationship

The overlap between migraine and depression and anxiety has been known for quite a while, agreed Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, vice chair of academic affairs, department of neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“I think the relationship is generally viewed as bidirectional and causality is uncertain. I still do not think I would assume that any drug that reduces migraine would reduce depression,” said Dr. Loder.

However, she added, the fremanezumab study data are interesting. “The effects of any drug on depression could be due to improvement of migraine or it could be due to some other effect of the treatment on depression. That is what makes these results so intriguing. If the findings are borne out by other studies, it could mean that these treatments would be preferred to those older ones in patients with depression,” Dr. Loder said.

Also commenting on the findings, Huma Sheikh, MD, CEO of NY Neurology Medicine PC, said the study is important because it confirms the strong association between migraine and depression. “Both conditions have similar underlying neurobiological pathophysiologies, and if you are impacting one area in the brain with the CGRP inhibitors, you might also be targeting some of the receptors or pathways that are involved in depression,” Dr. Sheikh said.

The study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lipton reported financial relationships with Teva and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loder and Dr. Sheikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo) to treat adults with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who are positive for anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) or anti–muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody, the drug’s manufacturer, UCB, has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo) to treat adults with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who are positive for anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) or anti–muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody, the drug’s manufacturer, UCB, has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo) to treat adults with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who are positive for anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) or anti–muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody, the drug’s manufacturer, UCB, has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved ritlecitinib on June 23 for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older, the manufacturer announced.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3). The recommended dose of ritlecitinib, which will be marketed as Litfulo, is 50 mg once a day, according to the statement announcing the approval from Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

It is the second JAK inhibitor approved for treating alopecia areata, following approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) in June 2022 for AA in adults. Ritlecitinib is the first JAK inhibitor approved for children ages 12 and older with AA.  

The European Medicines Agency has also accepted the Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib in the same population and a decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
 

Approval based on ALLEGRO trials

Approval was based on  previously announced results from trials, including the phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study of ritlecitinib in 718 patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata, with 50% of more scalp hair loss, as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT), including patients with alopecia totalis (complete scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (complete scalp, face, and body hair loss).

Patients in the trial were experiencing a current episode of alopecia areata that had lasted between 6 months and 10 years. They were randomized to receive once-daily ritlecitinib at doses of 30 mg or 50 mg (with or without 1 month of initial treatment with once-daily ritlecitinib 200 mg), ritlecitinib 10 mg, or placebo.

Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with ritlecitinib 30 mg and 50 mg (with or without the loading dose) had 80% or more scalp hair coverage, as measured by a SALT score of 20 or less after 6 months of treatment versus placebo. After 6 months of treatment, among those on the 50-mg dose, 23% had achieved a SALT score of 20 or less, compared with 2% of those on placebo. The results were published in The Lancet.

According to the company release, efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib was consistent between those ages 12-17 and adults, and the most common adverse events reported in the study, in at least 4% of patients treated with ritlecitinib, were headache (10.8%), diarrhea (10%), acne (6.2%), rash (5.4%), and urticaria (4.6%). 

Ritlecitinib labeling includes the boxed warning about the risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, which is included in the labels for other JAK inhibitors.
 

Ritlecitinib evaluated for other diseases

In addition to alopecia areata, ritlecitinib has shown efficacy and acceptable safety in treating ulcerative colitis and is being evaluated for treating vitiligo, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

In the statement, the company says that ritlecitinib will be available “in the coming weeks.” The manufacturer says it also has completed regulatory submissions for ritlecitinib in the United Kingdom, China, and Japan, and expects decisions this year.

Alopecia areata affects about 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million globally.

In a statement, Nicole Friedland, president and CEO of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, said that NAAF “is thrilled to have a second FDA-approved treatment for alopecia areata, which is the first approved for adolescents.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved ritlecitinib on June 23 for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older, the manufacturer announced.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3). The recommended dose of ritlecitinib, which will be marketed as Litfulo, is 50 mg once a day, according to the statement announcing the approval from Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

It is the second JAK inhibitor approved for treating alopecia areata, following approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) in June 2022 for AA in adults. Ritlecitinib is the first JAK inhibitor approved for children ages 12 and older with AA.  

The European Medicines Agency has also accepted the Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib in the same population and a decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
 

Approval based on ALLEGRO trials

Approval was based on  previously announced results from trials, including the phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study of ritlecitinib in 718 patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata, with 50% of more scalp hair loss, as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT), including patients with alopecia totalis (complete scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (complete scalp, face, and body hair loss).

Patients in the trial were experiencing a current episode of alopecia areata that had lasted between 6 months and 10 years. They were randomized to receive once-daily ritlecitinib at doses of 30 mg or 50 mg (with or without 1 month of initial treatment with once-daily ritlecitinib 200 mg), ritlecitinib 10 mg, or placebo.

Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with ritlecitinib 30 mg and 50 mg (with or without the loading dose) had 80% or more scalp hair coverage, as measured by a SALT score of 20 or less after 6 months of treatment versus placebo. After 6 months of treatment, among those on the 50-mg dose, 23% had achieved a SALT score of 20 or less, compared with 2% of those on placebo. The results were published in The Lancet.

According to the company release, efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib was consistent between those ages 12-17 and adults, and the most common adverse events reported in the study, in at least 4% of patients treated with ritlecitinib, were headache (10.8%), diarrhea (10%), acne (6.2%), rash (5.4%), and urticaria (4.6%). 

Ritlecitinib labeling includes the boxed warning about the risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, which is included in the labels for other JAK inhibitors.
 

Ritlecitinib evaluated for other diseases

In addition to alopecia areata, ritlecitinib has shown efficacy and acceptable safety in treating ulcerative colitis and is being evaluated for treating vitiligo, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

In the statement, the company says that ritlecitinib will be available “in the coming weeks.” The manufacturer says it also has completed regulatory submissions for ritlecitinib in the United Kingdom, China, and Japan, and expects decisions this year.

Alopecia areata affects about 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million globally.

In a statement, Nicole Friedland, president and CEO of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, said that NAAF “is thrilled to have a second FDA-approved treatment for alopecia areata, which is the first approved for adolescents.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved ritlecitinib on June 23 for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older, the manufacturer announced.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3). The recommended dose of ritlecitinib, which will be marketed as Litfulo, is 50 mg once a day, according to the statement announcing the approval from Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

It is the second JAK inhibitor approved for treating alopecia areata, following approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) in June 2022 for AA in adults. Ritlecitinib is the first JAK inhibitor approved for children ages 12 and older with AA.  

The European Medicines Agency has also accepted the Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib in the same population and a decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
 

Approval based on ALLEGRO trials

Approval was based on  previously announced results from trials, including the phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study of ritlecitinib in 718 patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata, with 50% of more scalp hair loss, as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT), including patients with alopecia totalis (complete scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (complete scalp, face, and body hair loss).

Patients in the trial were experiencing a current episode of alopecia areata that had lasted between 6 months and 10 years. They were randomized to receive once-daily ritlecitinib at doses of 30 mg or 50 mg (with or without 1 month of initial treatment with once-daily ritlecitinib 200 mg), ritlecitinib 10 mg, or placebo.

Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with ritlecitinib 30 mg and 50 mg (with or without the loading dose) had 80% or more scalp hair coverage, as measured by a SALT score of 20 or less after 6 months of treatment versus placebo. After 6 months of treatment, among those on the 50-mg dose, 23% had achieved a SALT score of 20 or less, compared with 2% of those on placebo. The results were published in The Lancet.

According to the company release, efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib was consistent between those ages 12-17 and adults, and the most common adverse events reported in the study, in at least 4% of patients treated with ritlecitinib, were headache (10.8%), diarrhea (10%), acne (6.2%), rash (5.4%), and urticaria (4.6%). 

Ritlecitinib labeling includes the boxed warning about the risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, which is included in the labels for other JAK inhibitors.
 

Ritlecitinib evaluated for other diseases

In addition to alopecia areata, ritlecitinib has shown efficacy and acceptable safety in treating ulcerative colitis and is being evaluated for treating vitiligo, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

In the statement, the company says that ritlecitinib will be available “in the coming weeks.” The manufacturer says it also has completed regulatory submissions for ritlecitinib in the United Kingdom, China, and Japan, and expects decisions this year.

Alopecia areata affects about 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million globally.

In a statement, Nicole Friedland, president and CEO of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, said that NAAF “is thrilled to have a second FDA-approved treatment for alopecia areata, which is the first approved for adolescents.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) plus enzalutamide (Xtandi) to treat homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene–mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Talazoparib is already approved for adults with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The new approval, granted following priority review, is based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial, published in The Lancet.

The 399 patients in the study were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily plus either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo daily. Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the treatment group; it was 13.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.45). In an exploratory analysis by BRCA mutation status, patients with BRCA-mutated disease who received talazoparib exhibited an even stronger median radiographic PFS (HR, 0.20; not reached vs. 11 months) in comparison with those without BRCA-mutated disease (HR, 0.72; 24.7 vs. 16.7 months).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide. The most common serious adverse reactions, reported in more than 2% of patients, included anemia (9%) and fracture (3%). Discontinuation of talazoparib occurred in 10% of patients, according to a Pfizer statement.

Pfizer also noted that a marketing authorization application for the drug combination has been accepted for review by the European Medicines Agency.

“Despite treatment advancement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the disease can progress quickly, and many patients may only receive one line of therapy,” lead investigator Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in a statement. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR genetic alterations have even worse outcomes, and thus the FDA’s approval of the talazoparib and enzalutamide combination “represents a treatment option deserving of excitement and attention.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) plus enzalutamide (Xtandi) to treat homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene–mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Talazoparib is already approved for adults with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The new approval, granted following priority review, is based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial, published in The Lancet.

The 399 patients in the study were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily plus either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo daily. Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the treatment group; it was 13.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.45). In an exploratory analysis by BRCA mutation status, patients with BRCA-mutated disease who received talazoparib exhibited an even stronger median radiographic PFS (HR, 0.20; not reached vs. 11 months) in comparison with those without BRCA-mutated disease (HR, 0.72; 24.7 vs. 16.7 months).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide. The most common serious adverse reactions, reported in more than 2% of patients, included anemia (9%) and fracture (3%). Discontinuation of talazoparib occurred in 10% of patients, according to a Pfizer statement.

Pfizer also noted that a marketing authorization application for the drug combination has been accepted for review by the European Medicines Agency.

“Despite treatment advancement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the disease can progress quickly, and many patients may only receive one line of therapy,” lead investigator Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in a statement. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR genetic alterations have even worse outcomes, and thus the FDA’s approval of the talazoparib and enzalutamide combination “represents a treatment option deserving of excitement and attention.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) plus enzalutamide (Xtandi) to treat homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene–mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Talazoparib is already approved for adults with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The new approval, granted following priority review, is based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial, published in The Lancet.

The 399 patients in the study were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily plus either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo daily. Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the treatment group; it was 13.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.45). In an exploratory analysis by BRCA mutation status, patients with BRCA-mutated disease who received talazoparib exhibited an even stronger median radiographic PFS (HR, 0.20; not reached vs. 11 months) in comparison with those without BRCA-mutated disease (HR, 0.72; 24.7 vs. 16.7 months).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide. The most common serious adverse reactions, reported in more than 2% of patients, included anemia (9%) and fracture (3%). Discontinuation of talazoparib occurred in 10% of patients, according to a Pfizer statement.

Pfizer also noted that a marketing authorization application for the drug combination has been accepted for review by the European Medicines Agency.

“Despite treatment advancement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the disease can progress quickly, and many patients may only receive one line of therapy,” lead investigator Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in a statement. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR genetic alterations have even worse outcomes, and thus the FDA’s approval of the talazoparib and enzalutamide combination “represents a treatment option deserving of excitement and attention.”

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

Ropinirole, a drug used for Parkinson’s disease (PD), shows promise in slowing the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), early research suggests. However, at least one expert believes the study has “significant flaws.”
 

Investigators randomly assigned 20 individuals with sporadic ALS to receive either ropinirole or placebo for 24 weeks. During the double-blind period, there was no difference between the groups in terms of decline in functional status.

However, during a further open-label extension period, the ropinirole group showed significant suppression of functional decline and an average of an additional 7 months of progression-free survival.

The researchers were able to predict clinical responsiveness to ropinirole in vitro by analyzing motor neurons derived from participants’ stem cells.

“We found that ropinirole is safe and tolerable for ALS patients and shows therapeutic promise at helping them sustain daily activity and muscle strength,” first author Satoru Morimoto, MD, of the department of physiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cell Stem Cell.
 

Feasibility study

“ALS is totally incurable and it’s a very difficult disease to treat,” senior author Hideyuki Okano, MD, PhD, professor, department of physiology, Keio University, said in the news release.

Preclinical animal models have “limited translational potential” for identifying drug candidates, but induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)–derived motor neurons (MNs) from ALS patients can “overcome these limitations for drug screening,” the authors write.

“We previously identified ropinirole [a dopamine D2 receptor agonist] as a potential anti-ALS drug in vitro by iPSC drug discovery,” Dr. Okano said.

The current trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1/2a feasibility trial that evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ropinirole in patients with ALS, using several parameters:

• The revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) score.
• Composite functional endpoints.
• Event-free survival.
• Time to ≤ 50% forced vital capacity (FVC).

The trial consisted of a 12-week run-in period, a 24-week double-blind period, an open-label extension period that lasted from 4 to 24 weeks, and a 4-week follow-up period after administration.

Thirteen patients were assigned to receive ropinirole (23.1% women; mean age, 65.2 ± 12.6 years; 7.7% with clinically definite and 76.9% with clinically probable ALS); seven were assigned to receive placebo (57.1% women; mean age, 66.3 ± 7.5 years; 14.3% with clinically definite and 85.7% with clinically probable ALS).

Of the treatment group, 30.8% had a bulbar onset lesion vs. 57.1% in the placebo group. At baseline, the mean FVC was 94.4% ± 14.9 and 81.5% ± 23.2 in the ropinirole and placebo groups, respectively. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 22.91 ± 3.82 and 19.69 ± 2.63, respectively.

Of the participants,12 in the ropinirole and six in the control group completed the full 24-week treatment protocol; 12 in the ropinirole and five in the placebo group completed the open-label extension (participants who had received placebo were switched to the active drug).

However only seven participants in the ropinirole group and one participant in the placebo group completed the full 1-year trial.
 

‘Striking correlation’

“During the double-blind period, muscle strength and daily activity were maintained, but a decline in the ALSFRS-R … was not different from that in the placebo group,” the researchers write.

In the open-label extension period, the ropinirole group showed “significant suppression of ALSFRS-R decline,” with an ALSFRS-R score change of only 7.75 (95% confidence interval, 10.66-4.63) for the treatment group vs. 17.51 (95% CI, 22.46-12.56) for the placebo group.

The researchers used the assessment of function and survival (CAFS) score, which adjusts the ALSFRS-R score against mortality, to see whether functional benefits translated into improved survival.

The score “favored ropinirole” in the open-extension period and the entire treatment period but not in the double-blind period.

Significant flaws

Commenting for this article, Carmel Armon, MD, MHS, professor of neurology, Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said the study “falls short of being a credible 1/2a clinical trial.”

Although the “intentions were good and the design not unusual,” the two groups were not “balanced on risk factors for faster progressing disease.” Rather, the placebo group was “tilted towards faster progressing disease” because there were more clinically definite and probable ALS patients in the placebo group than the treatment group, and there were more patients with bulbar onset.

Participants in the placebo group also had shorter median disease duration, lower BMI, and lower FVC, noted Dr. Armon, who was not involved with the study.

And only 1 in 7 control patients completed the open-label extension, compared with 7 of 13 patients in the intervention group.

“With these limitations, I would be disinclined to rely on the findings to justify a larger clinical trial,” Dr. Armon concluded.

The trial was sponsored by K Pharma. The study drug, active drugs, and placebo were supplied free of charge by GlaxoSmithKline K.K. Dr. Okano received grants from JSPS and AMED and grants and personal fees from K Pharma during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Sanbio, outside the submitted work. Dr. Okano has a patent on a therapeutic agent for ALS and composition for treatment licensed to K Pharma. The other authors’ disclosures and additional information are available in the original article. Dr. Armon reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ropinirole, a drug used for Parkinson’s disease (PD), shows promise in slowing the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), early research suggests. However, at least one expert believes the study has “significant flaws.”
 

Investigators randomly assigned 20 individuals with sporadic ALS to receive either ropinirole or placebo for 24 weeks. During the double-blind period, there was no difference between the groups in terms of decline in functional status.

However, during a further open-label extension period, the ropinirole group showed significant suppression of functional decline and an average of an additional 7 months of progression-free survival.

The researchers were able to predict clinical responsiveness to ropinirole in vitro by analyzing motor neurons derived from participants’ stem cells.

“We found that ropinirole is safe and tolerable for ALS patients and shows therapeutic promise at helping them sustain daily activity and muscle strength,” first author Satoru Morimoto, MD, of the department of physiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cell Stem Cell.
 

Feasibility study

“ALS is totally incurable and it’s a very difficult disease to treat,” senior author Hideyuki Okano, MD, PhD, professor, department of physiology, Keio University, said in the news release.

Preclinical animal models have “limited translational potential” for identifying drug candidates, but induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)–derived motor neurons (MNs) from ALS patients can “overcome these limitations for drug screening,” the authors write.

“We previously identified ropinirole [a dopamine D2 receptor agonist] as a potential anti-ALS drug in vitro by iPSC drug discovery,” Dr. Okano said.

The current trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1/2a feasibility trial that evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ropinirole in patients with ALS, using several parameters:

• The revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) score.
• Composite functional endpoints.
• Event-free survival.
• Time to ≤ 50% forced vital capacity (FVC).

The trial consisted of a 12-week run-in period, a 24-week double-blind period, an open-label extension period that lasted from 4 to 24 weeks, and a 4-week follow-up period after administration.

Thirteen patients were assigned to receive ropinirole (23.1% women; mean age, 65.2 ± 12.6 years; 7.7% with clinically definite and 76.9% with clinically probable ALS); seven were assigned to receive placebo (57.1% women; mean age, 66.3 ± 7.5 years; 14.3% with clinically definite and 85.7% with clinically probable ALS).

Of the treatment group, 30.8% had a bulbar onset lesion vs. 57.1% in the placebo group. At baseline, the mean FVC was 94.4% ± 14.9 and 81.5% ± 23.2 in the ropinirole and placebo groups, respectively. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 22.91 ± 3.82 and 19.69 ± 2.63, respectively.

Of the participants,12 in the ropinirole and six in the control group completed the full 24-week treatment protocol; 12 in the ropinirole and five in the placebo group completed the open-label extension (participants who had received placebo were switched to the active drug).

However only seven participants in the ropinirole group and one participant in the placebo group completed the full 1-year trial.
 

‘Striking correlation’

“During the double-blind period, muscle strength and daily activity were maintained, but a decline in the ALSFRS-R … was not different from that in the placebo group,” the researchers write.

In the open-label extension period, the ropinirole group showed “significant suppression of ALSFRS-R decline,” with an ALSFRS-R score change of only 7.75 (95% confidence interval, 10.66-4.63) for the treatment group vs. 17.51 (95% CI, 22.46-12.56) for the placebo group.

The researchers used the assessment of function and survival (CAFS) score, which adjusts the ALSFRS-R score against mortality, to see whether functional benefits translated into improved survival.

The score “favored ropinirole” in the open-extension period and the entire treatment period but not in the double-blind period.

Significant flaws

Commenting for this article, Carmel Armon, MD, MHS, professor of neurology, Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said the study “falls short of being a credible 1/2a clinical trial.”

Although the “intentions were good and the design not unusual,” the two groups were not “balanced on risk factors for faster progressing disease.” Rather, the placebo group was “tilted towards faster progressing disease” because there were more clinically definite and probable ALS patients in the placebo group than the treatment group, and there were more patients with bulbar onset.

Participants in the placebo group also had shorter median disease duration, lower BMI, and lower FVC, noted Dr. Armon, who was not involved with the study.

And only 1 in 7 control patients completed the open-label extension, compared with 7 of 13 patients in the intervention group.

“With these limitations, I would be disinclined to rely on the findings to justify a larger clinical trial,” Dr. Armon concluded.

The trial was sponsored by K Pharma. The study drug, active drugs, and placebo were supplied free of charge by GlaxoSmithKline K.K. Dr. Okano received grants from JSPS and AMED and grants and personal fees from K Pharma during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Sanbio, outside the submitted work. Dr. Okano has a patent on a therapeutic agent for ALS and composition for treatment licensed to K Pharma. The other authors’ disclosures and additional information are available in the original article. Dr. Armon reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ropinirole, a drug used for Parkinson’s disease (PD), shows promise in slowing the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), early research suggests. However, at least one expert believes the study has “significant flaws.”
 

Investigators randomly assigned 20 individuals with sporadic ALS to receive either ropinirole or placebo for 24 weeks. During the double-blind period, there was no difference between the groups in terms of decline in functional status.

However, during a further open-label extension period, the ropinirole group showed significant suppression of functional decline and an average of an additional 7 months of progression-free survival.

The researchers were able to predict clinical responsiveness to ropinirole in vitro by analyzing motor neurons derived from participants’ stem cells.

“We found that ropinirole is safe and tolerable for ALS patients and shows therapeutic promise at helping them sustain daily activity and muscle strength,” first author Satoru Morimoto, MD, of the department of physiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cell Stem Cell.
 

Feasibility study

“ALS is totally incurable and it’s a very difficult disease to treat,” senior author Hideyuki Okano, MD, PhD, professor, department of physiology, Keio University, said in the news release.

Preclinical animal models have “limited translational potential” for identifying drug candidates, but induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)–derived motor neurons (MNs) from ALS patients can “overcome these limitations for drug screening,” the authors write.

“We previously identified ropinirole [a dopamine D2 receptor agonist] as a potential anti-ALS drug in vitro by iPSC drug discovery,” Dr. Okano said.

The current trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1/2a feasibility trial that evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ropinirole in patients with ALS, using several parameters:

• The revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) score.
• Composite functional endpoints.
• Event-free survival.
• Time to ≤ 50% forced vital capacity (FVC).

The trial consisted of a 12-week run-in period, a 24-week double-blind period, an open-label extension period that lasted from 4 to 24 weeks, and a 4-week follow-up period after administration.

Thirteen patients were assigned to receive ropinirole (23.1% women; mean age, 65.2 ± 12.6 years; 7.7% with clinically definite and 76.9% with clinically probable ALS); seven were assigned to receive placebo (57.1% women; mean age, 66.3 ± 7.5 years; 14.3% with clinically definite and 85.7% with clinically probable ALS).

Of the treatment group, 30.8% had a bulbar onset lesion vs. 57.1% in the placebo group. At baseline, the mean FVC was 94.4% ± 14.9 and 81.5% ± 23.2 in the ropinirole and placebo groups, respectively. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 22.91 ± 3.82 and 19.69 ± 2.63, respectively.

Of the participants,12 in the ropinirole and six in the control group completed the full 24-week treatment protocol; 12 in the ropinirole and five in the placebo group completed the open-label extension (participants who had received placebo were switched to the active drug).

However only seven participants in the ropinirole group and one participant in the placebo group completed the full 1-year trial.
 

‘Striking correlation’

“During the double-blind period, muscle strength and daily activity were maintained, but a decline in the ALSFRS-R … was not different from that in the placebo group,” the researchers write.

In the open-label extension period, the ropinirole group showed “significant suppression of ALSFRS-R decline,” with an ALSFRS-R score change of only 7.75 (95% confidence interval, 10.66-4.63) for the treatment group vs. 17.51 (95% CI, 22.46-12.56) for the placebo group.

The researchers used the assessment of function and survival (CAFS) score, which adjusts the ALSFRS-R score against mortality, to see whether functional benefits translated into improved survival.

The score “favored ropinirole” in the open-extension period and the entire treatment period but not in the double-blind period.

Significant flaws

Commenting for this article, Carmel Armon, MD, MHS, professor of neurology, Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said the study “falls short of being a credible 1/2a clinical trial.”

Although the “intentions were good and the design not unusual,” the two groups were not “balanced on risk factors for faster progressing disease.” Rather, the placebo group was “tilted towards faster progressing disease” because there were more clinically definite and probable ALS patients in the placebo group than the treatment group, and there were more patients with bulbar onset.

Participants in the placebo group also had shorter median disease duration, lower BMI, and lower FVC, noted Dr. Armon, who was not involved with the study.

And only 1 in 7 control patients completed the open-label extension, compared with 7 of 13 patients in the intervention group.

“With these limitations, I would be disinclined to rely on the findings to justify a larger clinical trial,” Dr. Armon concluded.

The trial was sponsored by K Pharma. The study drug, active drugs, and placebo were supplied free of charge by GlaxoSmithKline K.K. Dr. Okano received grants from JSPS and AMED and grants and personal fees from K Pharma during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Sanbio, outside the submitted work. Dr. Okano has a patent on a therapeutic agent for ALS and composition for treatment licensed to K Pharma. The other authors’ disclosures and additional information are available in the original article. Dr. Armon reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients aren’t receiving all the medications they should based on guidelines, nor are they getting them at the most effective time in their disease course, suggests a registry study of patients in the United States hospitalized with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Only a sixth were on all guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) at admission, but that improved to one-third by discharge. On average, one such medication was initiated per patient for every 6 days in the hospital.

Shortfalls in predischarge GDMT initiation disproportionately landed on women, patients at rural centers, and those with renal failure or other comorbidities. But they didn’t seem related to patient race or ethnicity in the study reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

The analysis covers the 3 years preceding the May 2020 first-time approval of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for nondiabetic patients with HFrEF, and therefore doesn’t cover such drugs for that indication. The SGLT2 inhibitors would later join beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the quartet of core GDMT medications broadly indicated for HFrEF.

In-hospital initiation of GDMT for HFrEF is considered a predictor of being on those medications after discharge and is itself guideline recommended. There’s clear evidence that treatment with the four core medications boosts survival and cuts rehospitalization risk, and that “getting those on board as soon as possible will eventually benefit many patients,” Paul L. Hess, MD, MHS, said in an interview.

Dr. Hess, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, is senior author on the report from the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) quality improvement program of the American Heart Association.

Broad uptake of new medical therapies into practice may sometimes take 15 or more years from first publication, Dr. Hess said, so, “I find it encouraging in the study that over a shorter time period, 2017-2020, there was improvement.”

Indeed, the odds of in-hospital initiation of an indicated med during that period on average climbed a significant 8% every 3 months, the report states.

The finding suggests that “heart failure hospitalization is, in and of itself, an important intervention for getting folks on the appropriate medications,” Dr. Hess said. It also means “we’re getting better at it,” at least at the study’s 160 GWTG-HF participating hospitals nationwide.

Those centers, the report acknowledges, varied in size, geography, and teaching status but were not necessarily representative of all U.S. hospitals. In another potential limitation, the study couldn’t account for patients who weren’t prescribed all indicated medications for clinically valid reasons. It excluded patients with “clear contraindications,” Dr. Hess said. But there could have been “legitimate reasons” some indicated medications weren’t always prescribed, including patient frailty, hemodynamic intolerance, renal dysfunction, or polypharmacy concerns.

“Positive takeaways” from the analysis, notes an accompanying editorial, include improved prescription rates for key GDMT categories across more than 3 years of data, and evidence that in-hospital initiation “was feasible and, at least for some medications, reliably undertaken.”

Of note, new GDMT prescriptions from admission to discharge went from 70% to almost 98% for beta-blockers, from 59% to about 91% for RAS inhibitors, from about 26% to 56% for MRAs, and from 15.5% to 27.4% for hydralazine/nitrates, wrote Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, and Daniel K. Fox, MD, PhD, both of Washington University in St. Louis.

“Key areas for improvement,” they noted, include prescriptions for women, who were 12% less likely than men to have appropriate GDMT initiated during hospitalization (P < .001); and practice at rural hospitals, which were 40% less likely than urban centers to have patients on full GDMT by discharge (P = .017).

Although only 2.6% of the GWTG-HF centers were in rural locations, “rural hospitals make up approximately one-third of general acute care hospitals in this country,” the editorial states. They therefore “represent a key source of health disparity” in the United States in need of further study.

The analysis of 50,170 patients hospitalized with HFrEF compared the number of GDMT medications for which they were eligible, on at-hospital admission, and by discharge.

The drug categories included “evidence based beta blockers,” that is, bisoprolol, carvedilol, or sustained-release metoprolol; RAS inhibitors, specifically ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); MRAs; SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes; diuretics for congestion; oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation; and hydralazine/nitrates in African Americans.

About 15% of the patients at hospital admission were on all indicated HFrEF medications for which they were eligible. The proportion more than doubled to 32.8% by discharge.

Factors significantly associated with reduced odds for in-hospital GDMT initiation include older age (odds ratio, 0.94 per 5-year increment), being female versus male (OR, 0.88), rural location (OR, 0.60), Medicaid versus Medicare or private insurance (OR, 0.93), stroke history (OR, 0.91), peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.93), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma (OR, 0.86), and renal insufficiency (OR, 0.77).

The findings suggest that there has been at least some progress in getting hospitalized patients “on the right meds” by discharge, Dr. Hess observed. To help address shortfalls in some patient groups, “there is interest in engaging pharmacists in helping us encourage providers on the front lines to initiate and titrate medications.”

The GWTG-HF program is sponsored, in part, by Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Tylenol, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hess disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maddox disclosed serving on the Health Policy Advisory Council for Centene. Dr. Fox reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients aren’t receiving all the medications they should based on guidelines, nor are they getting them at the most effective time in their disease course, suggests a registry study of patients in the United States hospitalized with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Only a sixth were on all guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) at admission, but that improved to one-third by discharge. On average, one such medication was initiated per patient for every 6 days in the hospital.

Shortfalls in predischarge GDMT initiation disproportionately landed on women, patients at rural centers, and those with renal failure or other comorbidities. But they didn’t seem related to patient race or ethnicity in the study reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

The analysis covers the 3 years preceding the May 2020 first-time approval of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for nondiabetic patients with HFrEF, and therefore doesn’t cover such drugs for that indication. The SGLT2 inhibitors would later join beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the quartet of core GDMT medications broadly indicated for HFrEF.

In-hospital initiation of GDMT for HFrEF is considered a predictor of being on those medications after discharge and is itself guideline recommended. There’s clear evidence that treatment with the four core medications boosts survival and cuts rehospitalization risk, and that “getting those on board as soon as possible will eventually benefit many patients,” Paul L. Hess, MD, MHS, said in an interview.

Dr. Hess, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, is senior author on the report from the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) quality improvement program of the American Heart Association.

Broad uptake of new medical therapies into practice may sometimes take 15 or more years from first publication, Dr. Hess said, so, “I find it encouraging in the study that over a shorter time period, 2017-2020, there was improvement.”

Indeed, the odds of in-hospital initiation of an indicated med during that period on average climbed a significant 8% every 3 months, the report states.

The finding suggests that “heart failure hospitalization is, in and of itself, an important intervention for getting folks on the appropriate medications,” Dr. Hess said. It also means “we’re getting better at it,” at least at the study’s 160 GWTG-HF participating hospitals nationwide.

Those centers, the report acknowledges, varied in size, geography, and teaching status but were not necessarily representative of all U.S. hospitals. In another potential limitation, the study couldn’t account for patients who weren’t prescribed all indicated medications for clinically valid reasons. It excluded patients with “clear contraindications,” Dr. Hess said. But there could have been “legitimate reasons” some indicated medications weren’t always prescribed, including patient frailty, hemodynamic intolerance, renal dysfunction, or polypharmacy concerns.

“Positive takeaways” from the analysis, notes an accompanying editorial, include improved prescription rates for key GDMT categories across more than 3 years of data, and evidence that in-hospital initiation “was feasible and, at least for some medications, reliably undertaken.”

Of note, new GDMT prescriptions from admission to discharge went from 70% to almost 98% for beta-blockers, from 59% to about 91% for RAS inhibitors, from about 26% to 56% for MRAs, and from 15.5% to 27.4% for hydralazine/nitrates, wrote Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, and Daniel K. Fox, MD, PhD, both of Washington University in St. Louis.

“Key areas for improvement,” they noted, include prescriptions for women, who were 12% less likely than men to have appropriate GDMT initiated during hospitalization (P < .001); and practice at rural hospitals, which were 40% less likely than urban centers to have patients on full GDMT by discharge (P = .017).

Although only 2.6% of the GWTG-HF centers were in rural locations, “rural hospitals make up approximately one-third of general acute care hospitals in this country,” the editorial states. They therefore “represent a key source of health disparity” in the United States in need of further study.

The analysis of 50,170 patients hospitalized with HFrEF compared the number of GDMT medications for which they were eligible, on at-hospital admission, and by discharge.

The drug categories included “evidence based beta blockers,” that is, bisoprolol, carvedilol, or sustained-release metoprolol; RAS inhibitors, specifically ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); MRAs; SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes; diuretics for congestion; oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation; and hydralazine/nitrates in African Americans.

About 15% of the patients at hospital admission were on all indicated HFrEF medications for which they were eligible. The proportion more than doubled to 32.8% by discharge.

Factors significantly associated with reduced odds for in-hospital GDMT initiation include older age (odds ratio, 0.94 per 5-year increment), being female versus male (OR, 0.88), rural location (OR, 0.60), Medicaid versus Medicare or private insurance (OR, 0.93), stroke history (OR, 0.91), peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.93), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma (OR, 0.86), and renal insufficiency (OR, 0.77).

The findings suggest that there has been at least some progress in getting hospitalized patients “on the right meds” by discharge, Dr. Hess observed. To help address shortfalls in some patient groups, “there is interest in engaging pharmacists in helping us encourage providers on the front lines to initiate and titrate medications.”

The GWTG-HF program is sponsored, in part, by Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Tylenol, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hess disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maddox disclosed serving on the Health Policy Advisory Council for Centene. Dr. Fox reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients aren’t receiving all the medications they should based on guidelines, nor are they getting them at the most effective time in their disease course, suggests a registry study of patients in the United States hospitalized with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Only a sixth were on all guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) at admission, but that improved to one-third by discharge. On average, one such medication was initiated per patient for every 6 days in the hospital.

Shortfalls in predischarge GDMT initiation disproportionately landed on women, patients at rural centers, and those with renal failure or other comorbidities. But they didn’t seem related to patient race or ethnicity in the study reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

The analysis covers the 3 years preceding the May 2020 first-time approval of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for nondiabetic patients with HFrEF, and therefore doesn’t cover such drugs for that indication. The SGLT2 inhibitors would later join beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the quartet of core GDMT medications broadly indicated for HFrEF.

In-hospital initiation of GDMT for HFrEF is considered a predictor of being on those medications after discharge and is itself guideline recommended. There’s clear evidence that treatment with the four core medications boosts survival and cuts rehospitalization risk, and that “getting those on board as soon as possible will eventually benefit many patients,” Paul L. Hess, MD, MHS, said in an interview.

Dr. Hess, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, is senior author on the report from the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) quality improvement program of the American Heart Association.

Broad uptake of new medical therapies into practice may sometimes take 15 or more years from first publication, Dr. Hess said, so, “I find it encouraging in the study that over a shorter time period, 2017-2020, there was improvement.”

Indeed, the odds of in-hospital initiation of an indicated med during that period on average climbed a significant 8% every 3 months, the report states.

The finding suggests that “heart failure hospitalization is, in and of itself, an important intervention for getting folks on the appropriate medications,” Dr. Hess said. It also means “we’re getting better at it,” at least at the study’s 160 GWTG-HF participating hospitals nationwide.

Those centers, the report acknowledges, varied in size, geography, and teaching status but were not necessarily representative of all U.S. hospitals. In another potential limitation, the study couldn’t account for patients who weren’t prescribed all indicated medications for clinically valid reasons. It excluded patients with “clear contraindications,” Dr. Hess said. But there could have been “legitimate reasons” some indicated medications weren’t always prescribed, including patient frailty, hemodynamic intolerance, renal dysfunction, or polypharmacy concerns.

“Positive takeaways” from the analysis, notes an accompanying editorial, include improved prescription rates for key GDMT categories across more than 3 years of data, and evidence that in-hospital initiation “was feasible and, at least for some medications, reliably undertaken.”

Of note, new GDMT prescriptions from admission to discharge went from 70% to almost 98% for beta-blockers, from 59% to about 91% for RAS inhibitors, from about 26% to 56% for MRAs, and from 15.5% to 27.4% for hydralazine/nitrates, wrote Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, and Daniel K. Fox, MD, PhD, both of Washington University in St. Louis.

“Key areas for improvement,” they noted, include prescriptions for women, who were 12% less likely than men to have appropriate GDMT initiated during hospitalization (P < .001); and practice at rural hospitals, which were 40% less likely than urban centers to have patients on full GDMT by discharge (P = .017).

Although only 2.6% of the GWTG-HF centers were in rural locations, “rural hospitals make up approximately one-third of general acute care hospitals in this country,” the editorial states. They therefore “represent a key source of health disparity” in the United States in need of further study.

The analysis of 50,170 patients hospitalized with HFrEF compared the number of GDMT medications for which they were eligible, on at-hospital admission, and by discharge.

The drug categories included “evidence based beta blockers,” that is, bisoprolol, carvedilol, or sustained-release metoprolol; RAS inhibitors, specifically ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); MRAs; SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes; diuretics for congestion; oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation; and hydralazine/nitrates in African Americans.

About 15% of the patients at hospital admission were on all indicated HFrEF medications for which they were eligible. The proportion more than doubled to 32.8% by discharge.

Factors significantly associated with reduced odds for in-hospital GDMT initiation include older age (odds ratio, 0.94 per 5-year increment), being female versus male (OR, 0.88), rural location (OR, 0.60), Medicaid versus Medicare or private insurance (OR, 0.93), stroke history (OR, 0.91), peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.93), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma (OR, 0.86), and renal insufficiency (OR, 0.77).

The findings suggest that there has been at least some progress in getting hospitalized patients “on the right meds” by discharge, Dr. Hess observed. To help address shortfalls in some patient groups, “there is interest in engaging pharmacists in helping us encourage providers on the front lines to initiate and titrate medications.”

The GWTG-HF program is sponsored, in part, by Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Tylenol, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hess disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maddox disclosed serving on the Health Policy Advisory Council for Centene. Dr. Fox reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Vortioxetine significantly improves depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, functioning, and quality of life at 12 weeks in patients with both major depressive disorder (MDD) and early-stage dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
• Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
• Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
• Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
• There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
• Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.

IN PRACTICE:

“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted. 

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.

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

TOPLINE:

Vortioxetine significantly improves depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, functioning, and quality of life at 12 weeks in patients with both major depressive disorder (MDD) and early-stage dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
• Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
• Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
• Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
• There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
• Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.

IN PRACTICE:

“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted. 

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.

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

TOPLINE:

Vortioxetine significantly improves depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, functioning, and quality of life at 12 weeks in patients with both major depressive disorder (MDD) and early-stage dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
• Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
• Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
• Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
• There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
• Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.

IN PRACTICE:

“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted. 

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.

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