Pharmacology

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that results in progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord, which results in loss of voluntary muscle movements.¹ Eventually, typical daily tasks become difficult to perform, and as the disease progresses, the ability to eat and breathe is impaired.² Reports from 2015 show the annual incidence of ALS is 5 cases per 100,000 people, with the total number of cases reported at more than 16,000 in the United States.³ In clinical practice, disease progression is routinely assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Typical decline is 1 point per month.⁴

Unfortunately, at this time, ALS care focuses on symptom management, including prevention of weight loss; implementation of communication strategies; and management of pain, constipation, excess secretions, cramping, and breathing. Despite copious research into treatment options, few exist. Riluzole is an oral medication administered twice daily and has been on the market since 1995.^5-7 Efficacy was demonstrated in a study showing statistically significant survival at 12 months compared with controls (74% vs 58%, respectively; P = .014).⁶ Since its approval, riluzole has become part of standard-of-care ALS management.

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved edaravone, an IV medication that was found to slow the progression of ALS in some patients.^8-12 Oxidative stress caused by free radicals is hypothesized to increase the progression of ALS by motor neuron degradation.¹³ Edaravone works as a free radical and peroxynitrite scavenger and has been shown to eliminate lipid peroxides and hydroxyl radicals known to damage endothelial and neuronal cells.¹²

Given the mechanism of action of edaravone, it seemed to be a promising option to slow the progression of ALS. A 2019 systematic review analyzed 3 randomized studies with 367 patients and found a statistically significant difference in change in ALSFRS-R scores between patients treated with edaravone for 24 weeks compared with patients treated with the placebo (mean difference, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.26-3.00; P = .02).¹² Secondary endpoints evaluated included percent forced vital capacity (%FVC), grip strength, and pinch strength: All showing no significant difference when comparing IV edaravone with placebo.

A 2022 postmarketing study of 324 patients with ALS evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term edaravone treatment. IV edaravone therapy for > 24 weeks was well tolerated, although it was not associated with any disease-modifying benefit when comparing ALSFRS-R scores with patients not receiving edaravone over a median 13.9 months (ALSFRS-R points/month, -0.91 vs -0.85; P = .37).¹³ A third ALS treatment medication, sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol was approved in 2022 but not available during our study period and not included here.^14,15

Studies have shown an increased incidence of ALS in the veteran population. Veterans serving in the Gulf War were nearly twice as likely to develop ALS as those not serving in the Gulf.¹⁶ However, existing literature regarding the effectiveness of edaravone does not specifically examine the effect on this unique population. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of IV edaravone on ALS progression in veterans compared with veterans who received standard of care.

Methods

This study was conducted at a large, academic US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Patients with ALS are followed by a multidisciplinary clinic composed of a neurologist, pulmonologist, clinical pharmacist, social worker, speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, dietician, clinical psychologist, wheelchair clinic representative, and benefits representative. Patients are typically seen for a half-day appointment about every 3 months. During these visits, a comprehensive review of disease progression is performed. This review entails completion of the ALSFRS-R, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Speech intelligibility stage (SIS) is assessed by a speech therapist as well. SIS is scored from 1 (no detectable speech disorder) to 5 (no functional speech). All patients followed in this multidisciplinary ALS clinic receive standard-of-care treatment. This includes the discussion of treatment options that if appropriate are provided to help manage a wide range of complications associated with this disease (eg, pain, cramping, constipation, excessive secretions, weight loss, dysphagia). As a part of these personal discussions, treatment with riluzole is also offered as a standard-of-care pharmacologic option.

Study Design

This retrospective case-control study was conducted using electronic health record data to compare ALS progression in patients on IV edaravone therapy with standard of care. The Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis Institutional Review Board and the VA Research and Development Committee approved the study. The control cohort received the standard of care. Patients in the case cohort received standard of care and edaravone 60 mg infusions daily for an initial cycle of 14 days on treatment, followed by 14 days off. All subsequent cycles were 10 of 14 days on treatment followed by 14 days off. The initial 2 doses were administered in the outpatient infusion clinic to monitor for a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients then had a peripherally inserted central catheter line placed and received doses on days 3 through 14 at home. A port was placed for subsequent cycles, which were also completed at home. Appropriateness of edaravone therapy was assessed by the neurologist at each follow-up appointment. Therapy was then discontinued if warranted based on disease progression or patient preference.

Study Population

Patients included were aged 18 to 75 years with diagnosed ALS. Patients with complications that might influence evaluation of medication efficacy (eg, Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, significant dementia, other major medical morbidity) were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were on continuous bilevel positive airway pressure and/or had a total score of ≤ 3 points on ALSFRS-R items for dyspnea, orthopnea, or respiratory insufficiency. Due to our small sample size, patients were excluded if treatment was < 6 months, which is the gold standard of therapy duration established by clinical trials.^9,11,12

The standard-of-care cohort included patients enrolled in the multidisciplinary clinic September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. These patients were compared in a 2:1 ratio with patients who received IV edaravone. The edaravone cohort included patients who initiated treatment with IV edaravone between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020. This date range prior to the approval of edaravone was chosen to compare patients at similar stages of disease progression and to have the largest sample size possible.

Data Collection

Data were obtained for eligible patients using the VA Computerized Patient Record System. Demographic data gathered for each patient included age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), race, and riluzole use.

The primary endpoint was the change in ALSFRS-R score after 6 months of IV edaravone compared with standard-of-care ALS management. Secondary outcomes included change in ALSFRS-R scores 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, change in %FVC and SIS 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, duration of edaravone completed (months), time to death (months), and adverse events.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ² and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ² tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.⁹ Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Discussion

This 24-month, case-control retrospective study assessed efficacy and safety of IV edaravone for the management of ALS. Although the landmark edaravone study showed slowed progression of ALS at 6 and 12 months, the effectiveness of edaravone outside the clinical trial setting has been less compelling.^9-11,13 A later study showed no difference in change in ALSFRS-R score at 6 months compared with that of the placebo group.⁷ In our study, no statistically significant difference was found for change in ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months.

Our study was unique given we evaluated a veteran population. The link between the military and ALS is largely unknown, although studies have shown increased incidence of ALS in people with a military history compared with that of the general population.^16-18 Our study was also unique because it was single-centered in design and allowed for outcome assessments, including ALSFRS-R scores, SIS, and %FVC measurements, to all be conducted by the same practitioner to limit variability. Unfortunately, our sample size resulted in a cohort that was underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. In addition, there was a lack of data on chart review for SIS and %FVC measurements at 24 months. As ALS progresses toward end stage, SIS and %FVC measurements can become difficult and burdensome on the patient to obtain, and the ALS multidisciplinary team may decide not to gather these data points as ALS progresses. As a result, change in SIS and %FVC measurements were unable to be reported due to lack of gathering this information at the 24-month mark in the edaravone group. Due to the cost and administration burden associated with edaravone, it is important that assessment of disease progression is performed regularly to assess benefit and appropriateness of continued therapy. The oral formulation of edaravone was approved in 2022, shortly after the completion of data collection for this study.^19,20 Although our study did not analyze oral edaravone, the administration burden of treatment would be reduced with the oral formulation, and we hypothesize there will be increased patient interest in ALS management with oral vs IV edaravone. Evaluation of long-term treatment for efficacy and safety beyond 24 months has not been evaluated. Future studies should continue to evaluate edaravone use in a larger veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation for our study alluded to earlier in the discussion was sample size. Although this study met power at the 6-month mark, it was limited by the number of patients who received more than 6 months of edaravone (n = 21). As a result, statistical analyses between treatment groups were underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. Our study had 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. Previous studies detected a statistically significant difference in ALSFRS-R scores, with a difference in ALSFRS-R scores of 2.49 between groups.⁸ Future studies should evaluate a larger sample size of patients who are prescribed edaravone.

Another limitation was that the edaravone and standard-of-care group data were gathered from different time periods. Two different time frames were selected to increase sample size by gathering data over a longer period and to account for patients who may have qualified for IV edaravone but could not receive it as it was not yet available on the market. There were no known changes to the standard of care between the time periods that would affect results. As noted previously, the standard-of-care group had fewer patients taking riluzole compared with the edaravone group, which may have confounded our results. We concluded patients opting for edaravone were more likely to trial riluzole, taken by mouth twice daily, before starting edaravone, a once-daily IV infusion.

Conclusions

No difference in the rate of ALS progression was noted between patients who received IV edaravone vs standard of care at 6 months. In addition, no difference was noted in other objective measures of disease progression, including %FVC, SIS, and time to death. As a result, the decision to initiate and continue edaravone therapy should be made on an individualized basis according to a prescriber’s clinical judgment and a patient’s goals. Edaravone therapy should be discontinued when disease progression occurs or when medication administration becomes a burden.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that results in progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord, which results in loss of voluntary muscle movements.¹ Eventually, typical daily tasks become difficult to perform, and as the disease progresses, the ability to eat and breathe is impaired.² Reports from 2015 show the annual incidence of ALS is 5 cases per 100,000 people, with the total number of cases reported at more than 16,000 in the United States.³ In clinical practice, disease progression is routinely assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Typical decline is 1 point per month.⁴

Unfortunately, at this time, ALS care focuses on symptom management, including prevention of weight loss; implementation of communication strategies; and management of pain, constipation, excess secretions, cramping, and breathing. Despite copious research into treatment options, few exist. Riluzole is an oral medication administered twice daily and has been on the market since 1995.^5-7 Efficacy was demonstrated in a study showing statistically significant survival at 12 months compared with controls (74% vs 58%, respectively; P = .014).⁶ Since its approval, riluzole has become part of standard-of-care ALS management.

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved edaravone, an IV medication that was found to slow the progression of ALS in some patients.^8-12 Oxidative stress caused by free radicals is hypothesized to increase the progression of ALS by motor neuron degradation.¹³ Edaravone works as a free radical and peroxynitrite scavenger and has been shown to eliminate lipid peroxides and hydroxyl radicals known to damage endothelial and neuronal cells.¹²

Given the mechanism of action of edaravone, it seemed to be a promising option to slow the progression of ALS. A 2019 systematic review analyzed 3 randomized studies with 367 patients and found a statistically significant difference in change in ALSFRS-R scores between patients treated with edaravone for 24 weeks compared with patients treated with the placebo (mean difference, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.26-3.00; P = .02).¹² Secondary endpoints evaluated included percent forced vital capacity (%FVC), grip strength, and pinch strength: All showing no significant difference when comparing IV edaravone with placebo.

A 2022 postmarketing study of 324 patients with ALS evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term edaravone treatment. IV edaravone therapy for > 24 weeks was well tolerated, although it was not associated with any disease-modifying benefit when comparing ALSFRS-R scores with patients not receiving edaravone over a median 13.9 months (ALSFRS-R points/month, -0.91 vs -0.85; P = .37).¹³ A third ALS treatment medication, sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol was approved in 2022 but not available during our study period and not included here.^14,15

Studies have shown an increased incidence of ALS in the veteran population. Veterans serving in the Gulf War were nearly twice as likely to develop ALS as those not serving in the Gulf.¹⁶ However, existing literature regarding the effectiveness of edaravone does not specifically examine the effect on this unique population. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of IV edaravone on ALS progression in veterans compared with veterans who received standard of care.

Methods

This study was conducted at a large, academic US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Patients with ALS are followed by a multidisciplinary clinic composed of a neurologist, pulmonologist, clinical pharmacist, social worker, speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, dietician, clinical psychologist, wheelchair clinic representative, and benefits representative. Patients are typically seen for a half-day appointment about every 3 months. During these visits, a comprehensive review of disease progression is performed. This review entails completion of the ALSFRS-R, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Speech intelligibility stage (SIS) is assessed by a speech therapist as well. SIS is scored from 1 (no detectable speech disorder) to 5 (no functional speech). All patients followed in this multidisciplinary ALS clinic receive standard-of-care treatment. This includes the discussion of treatment options that if appropriate are provided to help manage a wide range of complications associated with this disease (eg, pain, cramping, constipation, excessive secretions, weight loss, dysphagia). As a part of these personal discussions, treatment with riluzole is also offered as a standard-of-care pharmacologic option.

Study Design

This retrospective case-control study was conducted using electronic health record data to compare ALS progression in patients on IV edaravone therapy with standard of care. The Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis Institutional Review Board and the VA Research and Development Committee approved the study. The control cohort received the standard of care. Patients in the case cohort received standard of care and edaravone 60 mg infusions daily for an initial cycle of 14 days on treatment, followed by 14 days off. All subsequent cycles were 10 of 14 days on treatment followed by 14 days off. The initial 2 doses were administered in the outpatient infusion clinic to monitor for a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients then had a peripherally inserted central catheter line placed and received doses on days 3 through 14 at home. A port was placed for subsequent cycles, which were also completed at home. Appropriateness of edaravone therapy was assessed by the neurologist at each follow-up appointment. Therapy was then discontinued if warranted based on disease progression or patient preference.

Study Population

Patients included were aged 18 to 75 years with diagnosed ALS. Patients with complications that might influence evaluation of medication efficacy (eg, Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, significant dementia, other major medical morbidity) were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were on continuous bilevel positive airway pressure and/or had a total score of ≤ 3 points on ALSFRS-R items for dyspnea, orthopnea, or respiratory insufficiency. Due to our small sample size, patients were excluded if treatment was < 6 months, which is the gold standard of therapy duration established by clinical trials.^9,11,12

The standard-of-care cohort included patients enrolled in the multidisciplinary clinic September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. These patients were compared in a 2:1 ratio with patients who received IV edaravone. The edaravone cohort included patients who initiated treatment with IV edaravone between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020. This date range prior to the approval of edaravone was chosen to compare patients at similar stages of disease progression and to have the largest sample size possible.

Data Collection

Data were obtained for eligible patients using the VA Computerized Patient Record System. Demographic data gathered for each patient included age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), race, and riluzole use.

The primary endpoint was the change in ALSFRS-R score after 6 months of IV edaravone compared with standard-of-care ALS management. Secondary outcomes included change in ALSFRS-R scores 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, change in %FVC and SIS 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, duration of edaravone completed (months), time to death (months), and adverse events.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ² and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ² tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.⁹ Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Discussion

This 24-month, case-control retrospective study assessed efficacy and safety of IV edaravone for the management of ALS. Although the landmark edaravone study showed slowed progression of ALS at 6 and 12 months, the effectiveness of edaravone outside the clinical trial setting has been less compelling.^9-11,13 A later study showed no difference in change in ALSFRS-R score at 6 months compared with that of the placebo group.⁷ In our study, no statistically significant difference was found for change in ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months.

Our study was unique given we evaluated a veteran population. The link between the military and ALS is largely unknown, although studies have shown increased incidence of ALS in people with a military history compared with that of the general population.^16-18 Our study was also unique because it was single-centered in design and allowed for outcome assessments, including ALSFRS-R scores, SIS, and %FVC measurements, to all be conducted by the same practitioner to limit variability. Unfortunately, our sample size resulted in a cohort that was underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. In addition, there was a lack of data on chart review for SIS and %FVC measurements at 24 months. As ALS progresses toward end stage, SIS and %FVC measurements can become difficult and burdensome on the patient to obtain, and the ALS multidisciplinary team may decide not to gather these data points as ALS progresses. As a result, change in SIS and %FVC measurements were unable to be reported due to lack of gathering this information at the 24-month mark in the edaravone group. Due to the cost and administration burden associated with edaravone, it is important that assessment of disease progression is performed regularly to assess benefit and appropriateness of continued therapy. The oral formulation of edaravone was approved in 2022, shortly after the completion of data collection for this study.^19,20 Although our study did not analyze oral edaravone, the administration burden of treatment would be reduced with the oral formulation, and we hypothesize there will be increased patient interest in ALS management with oral vs IV edaravone. Evaluation of long-term treatment for efficacy and safety beyond 24 months has not been evaluated. Future studies should continue to evaluate edaravone use in a larger veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation for our study alluded to earlier in the discussion was sample size. Although this study met power at the 6-month mark, it was limited by the number of patients who received more than 6 months of edaravone (n = 21). As a result, statistical analyses between treatment groups were underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. Our study had 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. Previous studies detected a statistically significant difference in ALSFRS-R scores, with a difference in ALSFRS-R scores of 2.49 between groups.⁸ Future studies should evaluate a larger sample size of patients who are prescribed edaravone.

Another limitation was that the edaravone and standard-of-care group data were gathered from different time periods. Two different time frames were selected to increase sample size by gathering data over a longer period and to account for patients who may have qualified for IV edaravone but could not receive it as it was not yet available on the market. There were no known changes to the standard of care between the time periods that would affect results. As noted previously, the standard-of-care group had fewer patients taking riluzole compared with the edaravone group, which may have confounded our results. We concluded patients opting for edaravone were more likely to trial riluzole, taken by mouth twice daily, before starting edaravone, a once-daily IV infusion.

Conclusions

No difference in the rate of ALS progression was noted between patients who received IV edaravone vs standard of care at 6 months. In addition, no difference was noted in other objective measures of disease progression, including %FVC, SIS, and time to death. As a result, the decision to initiate and continue edaravone therapy should be made on an individualized basis according to a prescriber’s clinical judgment and a patient’s goals. Edaravone therapy should be discontinued when disease progression occurs or when medication administration becomes a burden.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that results in progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord, which results in loss of voluntary muscle movements.¹ Eventually, typical daily tasks become difficult to perform, and as the disease progresses, the ability to eat and breathe is impaired.² Reports from 2015 show the annual incidence of ALS is 5 cases per 100,000 people, with the total number of cases reported at more than 16,000 in the United States.³ In clinical practice, disease progression is routinely assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Typical decline is 1 point per month.⁴

Unfortunately, at this time, ALS care focuses on symptom management, including prevention of weight loss; implementation of communication strategies; and management of pain, constipation, excess secretions, cramping, and breathing. Despite copious research into treatment options, few exist. Riluzole is an oral medication administered twice daily and has been on the market since 1995.^5-7 Efficacy was demonstrated in a study showing statistically significant survival at 12 months compared with controls (74% vs 58%, respectively; P = .014).⁶ Since its approval, riluzole has become part of standard-of-care ALS management.

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved edaravone, an IV medication that was found to slow the progression of ALS in some patients.^8-12 Oxidative stress caused by free radicals is hypothesized to increase the progression of ALS by motor neuron degradation.¹³ Edaravone works as a free radical and peroxynitrite scavenger and has been shown to eliminate lipid peroxides and hydroxyl radicals known to damage endothelial and neuronal cells.¹²

Given the mechanism of action of edaravone, it seemed to be a promising option to slow the progression of ALS. A 2019 systematic review analyzed 3 randomized studies with 367 patients and found a statistically significant difference in change in ALSFRS-R scores between patients treated with edaravone for 24 weeks compared with patients treated with the placebo (mean difference, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.26-3.00; P = .02).¹² Secondary endpoints evaluated included percent forced vital capacity (%FVC), grip strength, and pinch strength: All showing no significant difference when comparing IV edaravone with placebo.

A 2022 postmarketing study of 324 patients with ALS evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term edaravone treatment. IV edaravone therapy for > 24 weeks was well tolerated, although it was not associated with any disease-modifying benefit when comparing ALSFRS-R scores with patients not receiving edaravone over a median 13.9 months (ALSFRS-R points/month, -0.91 vs -0.85; P = .37).¹³ A third ALS treatment medication, sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol was approved in 2022 but not available during our study period and not included here.^14,15

Studies have shown an increased incidence of ALS in the veteran population. Veterans serving in the Gulf War were nearly twice as likely to develop ALS as those not serving in the Gulf.¹⁶ However, existing literature regarding the effectiveness of edaravone does not specifically examine the effect on this unique population. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of IV edaravone on ALS progression in veterans compared with veterans who received standard of care.

Methods

This study was conducted at a large, academic US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Patients with ALS are followed by a multidisciplinary clinic composed of a neurologist, pulmonologist, clinical pharmacist, social worker, speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, dietician, clinical psychologist, wheelchair clinic representative, and benefits representative. Patients are typically seen for a half-day appointment about every 3 months. During these visits, a comprehensive review of disease progression is performed. This review entails completion of the ALSFRS-R, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Speech intelligibility stage (SIS) is assessed by a speech therapist as well. SIS is scored from 1 (no detectable speech disorder) to 5 (no functional speech). All patients followed in this multidisciplinary ALS clinic receive standard-of-care treatment. This includes the discussion of treatment options that if appropriate are provided to help manage a wide range of complications associated with this disease (eg, pain, cramping, constipation, excessive secretions, weight loss, dysphagia). As a part of these personal discussions, treatment with riluzole is also offered as a standard-of-care pharmacologic option.

Study Design

This retrospective case-control study was conducted using electronic health record data to compare ALS progression in patients on IV edaravone therapy with standard of care. The Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis Institutional Review Board and the VA Research and Development Committee approved the study. The control cohort received the standard of care. Patients in the case cohort received standard of care and edaravone 60 mg infusions daily for an initial cycle of 14 days on treatment, followed by 14 days off. All subsequent cycles were 10 of 14 days on treatment followed by 14 days off. The initial 2 doses were administered in the outpatient infusion clinic to monitor for a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients then had a peripherally inserted central catheter line placed and received doses on days 3 through 14 at home. A port was placed for subsequent cycles, which were also completed at home. Appropriateness of edaravone therapy was assessed by the neurologist at each follow-up appointment. Therapy was then discontinued if warranted based on disease progression or patient preference.

Study Population

Patients included were aged 18 to 75 years with diagnosed ALS. Patients with complications that might influence evaluation of medication efficacy (eg, Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, significant dementia, other major medical morbidity) were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were on continuous bilevel positive airway pressure and/or had a total score of ≤ 3 points on ALSFRS-R items for dyspnea, orthopnea, or respiratory insufficiency. Due to our small sample size, patients were excluded if treatment was < 6 months, which is the gold standard of therapy duration established by clinical trials.^9,11,12

The standard-of-care cohort included patients enrolled in the multidisciplinary clinic September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. These patients were compared in a 2:1 ratio with patients who received IV edaravone. The edaravone cohort included patients who initiated treatment with IV edaravone between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020. This date range prior to the approval of edaravone was chosen to compare patients at similar stages of disease progression and to have the largest sample size possible.

Data Collection

Data were obtained for eligible patients using the VA Computerized Patient Record System. Demographic data gathered for each patient included age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), race, and riluzole use.

The primary endpoint was the change in ALSFRS-R score after 6 months of IV edaravone compared with standard-of-care ALS management. Secondary outcomes included change in ALSFRS-R scores 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, change in %FVC and SIS 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, duration of edaravone completed (months), time to death (months), and adverse events.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ² and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ² tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.⁹ Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Discussion

This 24-month, case-control retrospective study assessed efficacy and safety of IV edaravone for the management of ALS. Although the landmark edaravone study showed slowed progression of ALS at 6 and 12 months, the effectiveness of edaravone outside the clinical trial setting has been less compelling.^9-11,13 A later study showed no difference in change in ALSFRS-R score at 6 months compared with that of the placebo group.⁷ In our study, no statistically significant difference was found for change in ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months.

Our study was unique given we evaluated a veteran population. The link between the military and ALS is largely unknown, although studies have shown increased incidence of ALS in people with a military history compared with that of the general population.^16-18 Our study was also unique because it was single-centered in design and allowed for outcome assessments, including ALSFRS-R scores, SIS, and %FVC measurements, to all be conducted by the same practitioner to limit variability. Unfortunately, our sample size resulted in a cohort that was underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. In addition, there was a lack of data on chart review for SIS and %FVC measurements at 24 months. As ALS progresses toward end stage, SIS and %FVC measurements can become difficult and burdensome on the patient to obtain, and the ALS multidisciplinary team may decide not to gather these data points as ALS progresses. As a result, change in SIS and %FVC measurements were unable to be reported due to lack of gathering this information at the 24-month mark in the edaravone group. Due to the cost and administration burden associated with edaravone, it is important that assessment of disease progression is performed regularly to assess benefit and appropriateness of continued therapy. The oral formulation of edaravone was approved in 2022, shortly after the completion of data collection for this study.^19,20 Although our study did not analyze oral edaravone, the administration burden of treatment would be reduced with the oral formulation, and we hypothesize there will be increased patient interest in ALS management with oral vs IV edaravone. Evaluation of long-term treatment for efficacy and safety beyond 24 months has not been evaluated. Future studies should continue to evaluate edaravone use in a larger veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation for our study alluded to earlier in the discussion was sample size. Although this study met power at the 6-month mark, it was limited by the number of patients who received more than 6 months of edaravone (n = 21). As a result, statistical analyses between treatment groups were underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. Our study had 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. Previous studies detected a statistically significant difference in ALSFRS-R scores, with a difference in ALSFRS-R scores of 2.49 between groups.⁸ Future studies should evaluate a larger sample size of patients who are prescribed edaravone.

Another limitation was that the edaravone and standard-of-care group data were gathered from different time periods. Two different time frames were selected to increase sample size by gathering data over a longer period and to account for patients who may have qualified for IV edaravone but could not receive it as it was not yet available on the market. There were no known changes to the standard of care between the time periods that would affect results. As noted previously, the standard-of-care group had fewer patients taking riluzole compared with the edaravone group, which may have confounded our results. We concluded patients opting for edaravone were more likely to trial riluzole, taken by mouth twice daily, before starting edaravone, a once-daily IV infusion.

Conclusions

No difference in the rate of ALS progression was noted between patients who received IV edaravone vs standard of care at 6 months. In addition, no difference was noted in other objective measures of disease progression, including %FVC, SIS, and time to death. As a result, the decision to initiate and continue edaravone therapy should be made on an individualized basis according to a prescriber’s clinical judgment and a patient’s goals. Edaravone therapy should be discontinued when disease progression occurs or when medication administration becomes a burden.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Antibiotic pretreatment may protect against liver ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury through altered gut microbiota, glutamine levels, and glutamine downstream products in circulation, according to a recent study in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The findings show that gut microbiota and their metabolites play critical roles in hepatic I/R injury by modulating macrophage metabolic reprogramming, wrote Tianfei Lu, with the Abdominal Transplant Surgery Center at Ruijin Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and colleagues.

“Potential therapies that target macrophage metabolism, including antibiotic therapies and novel immunometabolism modulators, can be exploited for the treatment of liver I/R injury,” the authors wrote.

Liver I/R injury is a common complication of liver resection, transplantation, trauma, and hemorrhagic shock. Previous studies have noted the important role of gut microbiota in liver disease progression, yet the mechanisms in liver I/R injury remain unknown.

The researchers pretreated mice with an antibiotic cocktail to modify the gut microbiome. They found that the pretreatment showed protective effects against hepatic I/R injury, with reductions in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), interleukin-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, IL-6, IL-12b, and CXCL10.

Through histologic analysis of liver tissues, they also found that the area of necrosis, the degree of congestion and edema, and the presence of vacuole-like lesions were alleviated in the preconditioned mice. Inflammation and necrosis of the liver were also lower, according to both qualitative and quantitative data.

Then, through fecal microbiota transplantation into germ-free mice, they found that the protection from I/R injury was transferable. This finding indicated that the altered gut microbiome, rather than the antibiotic treatment itself, exerted the protective effect.

Because altered gut microbiota can cause changes in metabolites, the researchers used ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry to explore the changes of gut microbiota and metabolites in both feces and portal blood, as well as analyze the mechanisms underlying their protective effects in liver I/R injury.

The researchers found that glutamine and its downstream product called alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG) were present in higher concentrations in feces and blood in the mice with antibiotic pretreatment. Glutamate levels were significantly lower, indicating that glutamine is converted into AKG through glutamate after entering the blood.

In addition, there were increased levels of intermediate products of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, as well as pyruvate produced by glycolysis. That led to an increase in M2 macrophages, which are responsible for anti-inflammatory processes and tissue repair.

The authors concluded that elevated glutamine levels in the intestine cause an increase in AKG levels in the blood, and AKG can promote M2 macrophage polarization by fueling the TCA cycle. In turn, the increased number of M2 macrophages can repair hepatic I/R injury.

Finally, the researchers tested oligomycin A, which can block the OXPHOS metabolic pathway and inhibit the mitochondrial ATP synthase. As expected, they wrote, the protective effect of antibiotic pretreatment reversed, M2 macrophages decreased, and serum ALT levels increased.

“The immunometabolism and polarization of macrophages play an important role in host homeostasis and the development of various diseases,” the authors wrote. “The relationship between antibiotics treatment, altered gut microbiota, and liver I/R injury are complex and worthy of further study.”

The study was supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Natural Science Foundation exploration project of Zhejiang Province. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

Antibiotic pretreatment may protect against liver ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury through altered gut microbiota, glutamine levels, and glutamine downstream products in circulation, according to a recent study in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The findings show that gut microbiota and their metabolites play critical roles in hepatic I/R injury by modulating macrophage metabolic reprogramming, wrote Tianfei Lu, with the Abdominal Transplant Surgery Center at Ruijin Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and colleagues.

“Potential therapies that target macrophage metabolism, including antibiotic therapies and novel immunometabolism modulators, can be exploited for the treatment of liver I/R injury,” the authors wrote.

Liver I/R injury is a common complication of liver resection, transplantation, trauma, and hemorrhagic shock. Previous studies have noted the important role of gut microbiota in liver disease progression, yet the mechanisms in liver I/R injury remain unknown.

The researchers pretreated mice with an antibiotic cocktail to modify the gut microbiome. They found that the pretreatment showed protective effects against hepatic I/R injury, with reductions in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), interleukin-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, IL-6, IL-12b, and CXCL10.

Through histologic analysis of liver tissues, they also found that the area of necrosis, the degree of congestion and edema, and the presence of vacuole-like lesions were alleviated in the preconditioned mice. Inflammation and necrosis of the liver were also lower, according to both qualitative and quantitative data.

Then, through fecal microbiota transplantation into germ-free mice, they found that the protection from I/R injury was transferable. This finding indicated that the altered gut microbiome, rather than the antibiotic treatment itself, exerted the protective effect.

Because altered gut microbiota can cause changes in metabolites, the researchers used ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry to explore the changes of gut microbiota and metabolites in both feces and portal blood, as well as analyze the mechanisms underlying their protective effects in liver I/R injury.

The researchers found that glutamine and its downstream product called alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG) were present in higher concentrations in feces and blood in the mice with antibiotic pretreatment. Glutamate levels were significantly lower, indicating that glutamine is converted into AKG through glutamate after entering the blood.

In addition, there were increased levels of intermediate products of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, as well as pyruvate produced by glycolysis. That led to an increase in M2 macrophages, which are responsible for anti-inflammatory processes and tissue repair.

The authors concluded that elevated glutamine levels in the intestine cause an increase in AKG levels in the blood, and AKG can promote M2 macrophage polarization by fueling the TCA cycle. In turn, the increased number of M2 macrophages can repair hepatic I/R injury.

Finally, the researchers tested oligomycin A, which can block the OXPHOS metabolic pathway and inhibit the mitochondrial ATP synthase. As expected, they wrote, the protective effect of antibiotic pretreatment reversed, M2 macrophages decreased, and serum ALT levels increased.

“The immunometabolism and polarization of macrophages play an important role in host homeostasis and the development of various diseases,” the authors wrote. “The relationship between antibiotics treatment, altered gut microbiota, and liver I/R injury are complex and worthy of further study.”

The study was supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Natural Science Foundation exploration project of Zhejiang Province. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

Antibiotic pretreatment may protect against liver ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury through altered gut microbiota, glutamine levels, and glutamine downstream products in circulation, according to a recent study in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The findings show that gut microbiota and their metabolites play critical roles in hepatic I/R injury by modulating macrophage metabolic reprogramming, wrote Tianfei Lu, with the Abdominal Transplant Surgery Center at Ruijin Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and colleagues.

“Potential therapies that target macrophage metabolism, including antibiotic therapies and novel immunometabolism modulators, can be exploited for the treatment of liver I/R injury,” the authors wrote.

Liver I/R injury is a common complication of liver resection, transplantation, trauma, and hemorrhagic shock. Previous studies have noted the important role of gut microbiota in liver disease progression, yet the mechanisms in liver I/R injury remain unknown.

The researchers pretreated mice with an antibiotic cocktail to modify the gut microbiome. They found that the pretreatment showed protective effects against hepatic I/R injury, with reductions in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), interleukin-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, IL-6, IL-12b, and CXCL10.

Through histologic analysis of liver tissues, they also found that the area of necrosis, the degree of congestion and edema, and the presence of vacuole-like lesions were alleviated in the preconditioned mice. Inflammation and necrosis of the liver were also lower, according to both qualitative and quantitative data.

Then, through fecal microbiota transplantation into germ-free mice, they found that the protection from I/R injury was transferable. This finding indicated that the altered gut microbiome, rather than the antibiotic treatment itself, exerted the protective effect.

Because altered gut microbiota can cause changes in metabolites, the researchers used ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry to explore the changes of gut microbiota and metabolites in both feces and portal blood, as well as analyze the mechanisms underlying their protective effects in liver I/R injury.

The researchers found that glutamine and its downstream product called alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG) were present in higher concentrations in feces and blood in the mice with antibiotic pretreatment. Glutamate levels were significantly lower, indicating that glutamine is converted into AKG through glutamate after entering the blood.

In addition, there were increased levels of intermediate products of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, as well as pyruvate produced by glycolysis. That led to an increase in M2 macrophages, which are responsible for anti-inflammatory processes and tissue repair.

The authors concluded that elevated glutamine levels in the intestine cause an increase in AKG levels in the blood, and AKG can promote M2 macrophage polarization by fueling the TCA cycle. In turn, the increased number of M2 macrophages can repair hepatic I/R injury.

Finally, the researchers tested oligomycin A, which can block the OXPHOS metabolic pathway and inhibit the mitochondrial ATP synthase. As expected, they wrote, the protective effect of antibiotic pretreatment reversed, M2 macrophages decreased, and serum ALT levels increased.

“The immunometabolism and polarization of macrophages play an important role in host homeostasis and the development of various diseases,” the authors wrote. “The relationship between antibiotics treatment, altered gut microbiota, and liver I/R injury are complex and worthy of further study.”

The study was supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Natural Science Foundation exploration project of Zhejiang Province. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

Vedolizumab appears to be effective at reducing intestinal inflammation and inducing remission in patients who developed chronic pouchitis after undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis, according to a phase 4 trial.

The incidence of modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (mPDAI)–defined remission after 14 weeks was 31% for vedolizumab, compared with 10% for placebo.

“Vedolizumab works in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, so it appeared rational to test its efficacy in chronic, antibiotic-resistant pouchitis,” lead author Simon Travis, DPhil, professor of clinical gastroenterology at the University of Oxford’s Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology and Translational Gastroenterology Unit in the United Kingdom, said in an interview.

“Vedolizumab works for antibiotic-resistant pouchitis,” he said. “It is the first advanced therapy licensed for chronic pouchitis in Europe and can be a game changer for patients who develop pouchitis after experiencing ulcerative colitis severe enough to need colectomy who might have thought that surgery would be the ultimate solution.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.


 

Treating chronic pouchitis

About half of patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA will develop pouchitis within 5 years, the authors write. Among those, about one-fifth will have chronic pouchitis, with symptoms that last longer than 4 weeks. Symptoms include increased stool frequency, abdominal pain, fecal urgency, and impaired quality of life.

Typically, antibiotics are recommended as first-line treatment for acute pouchitis, but antibiotic resistance is common. Previous studies have suggested that tumor necrosis factor antagonists and the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab and ustekinumab may be effective in pouchitis that is refractory to antibiotics.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved vedolizumab as a treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. In early 2022, the European Commission approved vedolizumab for adult patients with moderate to severe active chronic pouchitis who had undergone proctocolectomy with IPAA and had an inadequate response to antibiotic therapy. The approval was based on results from the EARNEST trial.

As part of the EARNEST trial, Dr. Travis and colleagues at 31 sites in North America and Europe conducted a phase 4, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate vedolizumab for chronic pouchitis after IPAA for ulcerative colitis.

Between October 2016 and March 2020, researchers identified 102 adult patients who met the study criteria. They were eligible if they had undergone proctocolectomy at least 1 year before screening and had active chronic pouchitis, which was defined by an mPDAI score of 5 or more and a minimum subscore of 2 on the endoscopic domain.

After a 28-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of intravenous vedolizumab or placebo on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, and 30. All patients also received 500 mg of oral ciprofloxacin twice daily from weeks 1 to 4. Additional courses of antibiotics were allowed, as needed, for pouchitis flares that occurred after week 14.

The primary endpoint was mPDAI-defined remission, or an mPDAI score of 4 or less and a reduction of 2 or more points on the 12-point scale at week 14.

Other endpoints included mPDAI-defined remission at week 34, mPDAI-defined response (a reduction of 2 or more points) at weeks 14 and 34, and PDAI-defined remission (a PDAI score of 6 or less and a reduction of 3 or more points on the 18-point scale) at weeks 14 and 34. The mPDAI is based on clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings, whereas the PDAI is based on clinical symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histologic findings.

Overall, 36 patients (71%) in the vedolizumab group and 32 patients (63%) in the placebo group completed treatment and received all infusions through week 30. Eight patients in each group discontinued vedolizumab or placebo owing to a lack of efficacy. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups – about 84% of the patients were White, and the majority were men.

At the 14-week mark, 16 of 51 patients (31%) in the vedolizumab group and 5 of 51 patients (10%) in the placebo group achieved mPDAI-defined remission (a 21–percentage point difference; 95% CI, 5-38; P = .01). At week 34, 35% of the vedolizumab group and 18% of the placebo group reached remission. A post hoc analysis found that a high percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group reached remission regardless of whether concomitant antibiotics were used before week 14 or 34.

“Concomitant antibiotic use after week 4 was reported in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the placebo group, a finding that was unexpected,” the authors write. “However, the use of additional antibiotics was not considered to be a treatment failure because antibiotics are the current standard of care for chronic pouchitis.”
 

Additional findings

Vedolizumab showed major differences in the other endpoints as well. The percentage of patients with PDAI-defined remission was 35% in the vedolizumab group versus 10% in the placebo group at week 14, and 37% versus 18% at week 34.

The percentage of patients with mPDAI-defined response at week 14 was 63% among the vedolizumab group and 33% among the placebo group. By week 34, the between-group difference was 51% versus 29%.

Vedolizumab also showed greater changes in total PDAI scores, including endoscopic and histologic subscores, as well as remission and response defined by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). However, there were no significant differences in changes from baseline for the IBDQ or the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (CGQL) score.

The vedolizumab group had a higher percentage of patients with sustained mPDAI-defined remission (difference, 22 percentage points; 95% CI, 6-37) and sustained PDAI-defined remission (difference, 23 percentage points; 95% CI, 8-39).

Adverse events were reported in 47 patients (92%) in the vedolizumab group and 44 patients (86%) in the placebo group. Pouchitis was reported as an adverse event in 24 patients (47%) in the vedolizumab group and 20 patients (39%) in the placebo group. More patients in the vedolizumab group also reported upper respiratory tract infections and headaches.

Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (6%) in the vedolizumab group and four patients (8%) in the placebo group. One adverse event led to discontinuation of vedolizumab, and no serious adverse events were related to vedolizumab or led to discontinuation of vedolizumab.
 

‘Landmark study’

“This is a landmark study that shows us that a biologic that we have used for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis may also be used to treat chronic pouchitis. This is a large unmet need for our patients and an important advancement for the field,” Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

The Cleveland Clinic has one of the highest referral rates in the country for IPAA, noted Dr. Regueiro, who wasn’t involved with this study. Colleagues are currently conducting studies to determine who may develop pouchitis and understand why certain patients develop pouchitis after the procedure, he said.

One question the EARNEST trial leaves unanswered is whether vedolizumab will be required as a sustained medicine to control pouchitis or could be stopped at some point, he said. “My sense is that, as is the case with any IBD, chronic treatment will be required,” he added.

The higher rate of ciprofloxacin use among patients who received vedolizumab is interesting, Dr. Regueiro said.

“[The researchers] note that ciprofloxacin was used for symptoms and do not know if there was active inflammation. It’s possible that bacterial overgrowth caused symptoms and the antibiotic treated that, and in a study this small, it is difficult to say anything more,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Takeda, the manufacturer of vedolizumab. Several authors reported speaking fees and consultant roles for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Takeda. Three of the authors are employees of Takeda. Dr. Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Vedolizumab appears to be effective at reducing intestinal inflammation and inducing remission in patients who developed chronic pouchitis after undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis, according to a phase 4 trial.

The incidence of modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (mPDAI)–defined remission after 14 weeks was 31% for vedolizumab, compared with 10% for placebo.

“Vedolizumab works in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, so it appeared rational to test its efficacy in chronic, antibiotic-resistant pouchitis,” lead author Simon Travis, DPhil, professor of clinical gastroenterology at the University of Oxford’s Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology and Translational Gastroenterology Unit in the United Kingdom, said in an interview.

“Vedolizumab works for antibiotic-resistant pouchitis,” he said. “It is the first advanced therapy licensed for chronic pouchitis in Europe and can be a game changer for patients who develop pouchitis after experiencing ulcerative colitis severe enough to need colectomy who might have thought that surgery would be the ultimate solution.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.


 

Treating chronic pouchitis

About half of patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA will develop pouchitis within 5 years, the authors write. Among those, about one-fifth will have chronic pouchitis, with symptoms that last longer than 4 weeks. Symptoms include increased stool frequency, abdominal pain, fecal urgency, and impaired quality of life.

Typically, antibiotics are recommended as first-line treatment for acute pouchitis, but antibiotic resistance is common. Previous studies have suggested that tumor necrosis factor antagonists and the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab and ustekinumab may be effective in pouchitis that is refractory to antibiotics.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved vedolizumab as a treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. In early 2022, the European Commission approved vedolizumab for adult patients with moderate to severe active chronic pouchitis who had undergone proctocolectomy with IPAA and had an inadequate response to antibiotic therapy. The approval was based on results from the EARNEST trial.

As part of the EARNEST trial, Dr. Travis and colleagues at 31 sites in North America and Europe conducted a phase 4, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate vedolizumab for chronic pouchitis after IPAA for ulcerative colitis.

Between October 2016 and March 2020, researchers identified 102 adult patients who met the study criteria. They were eligible if they had undergone proctocolectomy at least 1 year before screening and had active chronic pouchitis, which was defined by an mPDAI score of 5 or more and a minimum subscore of 2 on the endoscopic domain.

After a 28-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of intravenous vedolizumab or placebo on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, and 30. All patients also received 500 mg of oral ciprofloxacin twice daily from weeks 1 to 4. Additional courses of antibiotics were allowed, as needed, for pouchitis flares that occurred after week 14.

The primary endpoint was mPDAI-defined remission, or an mPDAI score of 4 or less and a reduction of 2 or more points on the 12-point scale at week 14.

Other endpoints included mPDAI-defined remission at week 34, mPDAI-defined response (a reduction of 2 or more points) at weeks 14 and 34, and PDAI-defined remission (a PDAI score of 6 or less and a reduction of 3 or more points on the 18-point scale) at weeks 14 and 34. The mPDAI is based on clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings, whereas the PDAI is based on clinical symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histologic findings.

Overall, 36 patients (71%) in the vedolizumab group and 32 patients (63%) in the placebo group completed treatment and received all infusions through week 30. Eight patients in each group discontinued vedolizumab or placebo owing to a lack of efficacy. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups – about 84% of the patients were White, and the majority were men.

At the 14-week mark, 16 of 51 patients (31%) in the vedolizumab group and 5 of 51 patients (10%) in the placebo group achieved mPDAI-defined remission (a 21–percentage point difference; 95% CI, 5-38; P = .01). At week 34, 35% of the vedolizumab group and 18% of the placebo group reached remission. A post hoc analysis found that a high percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group reached remission regardless of whether concomitant antibiotics were used before week 14 or 34.

“Concomitant antibiotic use after week 4 was reported in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the placebo group, a finding that was unexpected,” the authors write. “However, the use of additional antibiotics was not considered to be a treatment failure because antibiotics are the current standard of care for chronic pouchitis.”
 

Additional findings

Vedolizumab showed major differences in the other endpoints as well. The percentage of patients with PDAI-defined remission was 35% in the vedolizumab group versus 10% in the placebo group at week 14, and 37% versus 18% at week 34.

The percentage of patients with mPDAI-defined response at week 14 was 63% among the vedolizumab group and 33% among the placebo group. By week 34, the between-group difference was 51% versus 29%.

Vedolizumab also showed greater changes in total PDAI scores, including endoscopic and histologic subscores, as well as remission and response defined by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). However, there were no significant differences in changes from baseline for the IBDQ or the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (CGQL) score.

The vedolizumab group had a higher percentage of patients with sustained mPDAI-defined remission (difference, 22 percentage points; 95% CI, 6-37) and sustained PDAI-defined remission (difference, 23 percentage points; 95% CI, 8-39).

Adverse events were reported in 47 patients (92%) in the vedolizumab group and 44 patients (86%) in the placebo group. Pouchitis was reported as an adverse event in 24 patients (47%) in the vedolizumab group and 20 patients (39%) in the placebo group. More patients in the vedolizumab group also reported upper respiratory tract infections and headaches.

Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (6%) in the vedolizumab group and four patients (8%) in the placebo group. One adverse event led to discontinuation of vedolizumab, and no serious adverse events were related to vedolizumab or led to discontinuation of vedolizumab.
 

‘Landmark study’

“This is a landmark study that shows us that a biologic that we have used for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis may also be used to treat chronic pouchitis. This is a large unmet need for our patients and an important advancement for the field,” Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

The Cleveland Clinic has one of the highest referral rates in the country for IPAA, noted Dr. Regueiro, who wasn’t involved with this study. Colleagues are currently conducting studies to determine who may develop pouchitis and understand why certain patients develop pouchitis after the procedure, he said.

One question the EARNEST trial leaves unanswered is whether vedolizumab will be required as a sustained medicine to control pouchitis or could be stopped at some point, he said. “My sense is that, as is the case with any IBD, chronic treatment will be required,” he added.

The higher rate of ciprofloxacin use among patients who received vedolizumab is interesting, Dr. Regueiro said.

“[The researchers] note that ciprofloxacin was used for symptoms and do not know if there was active inflammation. It’s possible that bacterial overgrowth caused symptoms and the antibiotic treated that, and in a study this small, it is difficult to say anything more,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Takeda, the manufacturer of vedolizumab. Several authors reported speaking fees and consultant roles for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Takeda. Three of the authors are employees of Takeda. Dr. Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Vedolizumab appears to be effective at reducing intestinal inflammation and inducing remission in patients who developed chronic pouchitis after undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis, according to a phase 4 trial.

The incidence of modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (mPDAI)–defined remission after 14 weeks was 31% for vedolizumab, compared with 10% for placebo.

“Vedolizumab works in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, so it appeared rational to test its efficacy in chronic, antibiotic-resistant pouchitis,” lead author Simon Travis, DPhil, professor of clinical gastroenterology at the University of Oxford’s Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology and Translational Gastroenterology Unit in the United Kingdom, said in an interview.

“Vedolizumab works for antibiotic-resistant pouchitis,” he said. “It is the first advanced therapy licensed for chronic pouchitis in Europe and can be a game changer for patients who develop pouchitis after experiencing ulcerative colitis severe enough to need colectomy who might have thought that surgery would be the ultimate solution.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.


 

Treating chronic pouchitis

About half of patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA will develop pouchitis within 5 years, the authors write. Among those, about one-fifth will have chronic pouchitis, with symptoms that last longer than 4 weeks. Symptoms include increased stool frequency, abdominal pain, fecal urgency, and impaired quality of life.

Typically, antibiotics are recommended as first-line treatment for acute pouchitis, but antibiotic resistance is common. Previous studies have suggested that tumor necrosis factor antagonists and the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab and ustekinumab may be effective in pouchitis that is refractory to antibiotics.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved vedolizumab as a treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. In early 2022, the European Commission approved vedolizumab for adult patients with moderate to severe active chronic pouchitis who had undergone proctocolectomy with IPAA and had an inadequate response to antibiotic therapy. The approval was based on results from the EARNEST trial.

As part of the EARNEST trial, Dr. Travis and colleagues at 31 sites in North America and Europe conducted a phase 4, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate vedolizumab for chronic pouchitis after IPAA for ulcerative colitis.

Between October 2016 and March 2020, researchers identified 102 adult patients who met the study criteria. They were eligible if they had undergone proctocolectomy at least 1 year before screening and had active chronic pouchitis, which was defined by an mPDAI score of 5 or more and a minimum subscore of 2 on the endoscopic domain.

After a 28-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of intravenous vedolizumab or placebo on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, and 30. All patients also received 500 mg of oral ciprofloxacin twice daily from weeks 1 to 4. Additional courses of antibiotics were allowed, as needed, for pouchitis flares that occurred after week 14.

The primary endpoint was mPDAI-defined remission, or an mPDAI score of 4 or less and a reduction of 2 or more points on the 12-point scale at week 14.

Other endpoints included mPDAI-defined remission at week 34, mPDAI-defined response (a reduction of 2 or more points) at weeks 14 and 34, and PDAI-defined remission (a PDAI score of 6 or less and a reduction of 3 or more points on the 18-point scale) at weeks 14 and 34. The mPDAI is based on clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings, whereas the PDAI is based on clinical symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histologic findings.

Overall, 36 patients (71%) in the vedolizumab group and 32 patients (63%) in the placebo group completed treatment and received all infusions through week 30. Eight patients in each group discontinued vedolizumab or placebo owing to a lack of efficacy. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups – about 84% of the patients were White, and the majority were men.

At the 14-week mark, 16 of 51 patients (31%) in the vedolizumab group and 5 of 51 patients (10%) in the placebo group achieved mPDAI-defined remission (a 21–percentage point difference; 95% CI, 5-38; P = .01). At week 34, 35% of the vedolizumab group and 18% of the placebo group reached remission. A post hoc analysis found that a high percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group reached remission regardless of whether concomitant antibiotics were used before week 14 or 34.

“Concomitant antibiotic use after week 4 was reported in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the placebo group, a finding that was unexpected,” the authors write. “However, the use of additional antibiotics was not considered to be a treatment failure because antibiotics are the current standard of care for chronic pouchitis.”
 

Additional findings

Vedolizumab showed major differences in the other endpoints as well. The percentage of patients with PDAI-defined remission was 35% in the vedolizumab group versus 10% in the placebo group at week 14, and 37% versus 18% at week 34.

The percentage of patients with mPDAI-defined response at week 14 was 63% among the vedolizumab group and 33% among the placebo group. By week 34, the between-group difference was 51% versus 29%.

Vedolizumab also showed greater changes in total PDAI scores, including endoscopic and histologic subscores, as well as remission and response defined by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). However, there were no significant differences in changes from baseline for the IBDQ or the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (CGQL) score.

The vedolizumab group had a higher percentage of patients with sustained mPDAI-defined remission (difference, 22 percentage points; 95% CI, 6-37) and sustained PDAI-defined remission (difference, 23 percentage points; 95% CI, 8-39).

Adverse events were reported in 47 patients (92%) in the vedolizumab group and 44 patients (86%) in the placebo group. Pouchitis was reported as an adverse event in 24 patients (47%) in the vedolizumab group and 20 patients (39%) in the placebo group. More patients in the vedolizumab group also reported upper respiratory tract infections and headaches.

Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (6%) in the vedolizumab group and four patients (8%) in the placebo group. One adverse event led to discontinuation of vedolizumab, and no serious adverse events were related to vedolizumab or led to discontinuation of vedolizumab.
 

‘Landmark study’

“This is a landmark study that shows us that a biologic that we have used for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis may also be used to treat chronic pouchitis. This is a large unmet need for our patients and an important advancement for the field,” Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

The Cleveland Clinic has one of the highest referral rates in the country for IPAA, noted Dr. Regueiro, who wasn’t involved with this study. Colleagues are currently conducting studies to determine who may develop pouchitis and understand why certain patients develop pouchitis after the procedure, he said.

One question the EARNEST trial leaves unanswered is whether vedolizumab will be required as a sustained medicine to control pouchitis or could be stopped at some point, he said. “My sense is that, as is the case with any IBD, chronic treatment will be required,” he added.

The higher rate of ciprofloxacin use among patients who received vedolizumab is interesting, Dr. Regueiro said.

“[The researchers] note that ciprofloxacin was used for symptoms and do not know if there was active inflammation. It’s possible that bacterial overgrowth caused symptoms and the antibiotic treated that, and in a study this small, it is difficult to say anything more,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Takeda, the manufacturer of vedolizumab. Several authors reported speaking fees and consultant roles for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Takeda. Three of the authors are employees of Takeda. Dr. Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Semaglutide didn’t significantly improve liver fibrosis or achieve resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)–related compensated cirrhosis, compared with placebo, according to a phase 2 trial.

However, the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist led to improvements in liver enzymes, liver steatosis, weight, triglycerides, and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol. Similar proportions of patients in each group reported adverse events, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

“Previous studies in patients with NASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis have shown that semaglutide can improve NASH resolution over 72 weeks. However, there are limited data on whether any therapy is effective in patients with NASH cirrhosis,” lead author Rohit Loomba, MD, founding director of the NAFLD Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“Although semaglutide did not succeed in improving histological fibrosis, it had success in improving other clinically important parameters, such as cardiometabolic risk factors, liver enzymes, liver fat, and noninvasive biomarkers of fibrosis,” he said.

The study was published online  in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
 

Analyzing safety and efficacy

Dr. Loomba and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial that enrolled 71 patients at 38 centers in the United States and Europe between June 2019 and April 2021. Adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH-related cirrhosis and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m² were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at 2.4 mg or a visually matching placebo.

Patients were randomly allocated through an interactive web system, which stratified participants on the basis of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Patients, investigators, and outcomes analysts were masked to the treatment assignment.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an improvement in liver fibrosis of one stage or more without a worsening of NASH after 48 weeks, which was measured through biopsy in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of semaglutide.

Among the 71 patients, 47 were randomly assigned to the semaglutide group and 24 to the placebo group. About 90% completed treatment, and 63 had evaluable paired biopsies for primary endpoint assessment.

Between the groups, 49 participants (69%) were women and 22 were men. The average age was 59.5 years, and the average BMI was 34.9. About 75% of patients had diabetes at baseline, with an average hemoglobin A1c of 7.1%.

After 48 weeks, researchers found no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion of patients with an improvement in liver fibrosis of one stage or more without worsening of NASH. In the semaglutide group, five patients (11%) had an improvement, compared with seven patients (29%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-1.24, P = .087).

There also wasn’t a significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients who achieved NASH resolution. In the semaglutide group, 16 patients (34%) had resolution, compared with 5 patients (21%) in the placebo group (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.56-7.91; P = .29).

In addition, a lower proportion of patients achieved both NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis with semaglutide versus placebo, although the difference wasn’t significant. In the semaglutide group, three patients (6%) achieved both, compared with three patients (13%) in the placebo group (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.06-3.91; P = .4). A lower proportion of patients had an improvement in liver fibrosis stage with semaglutide versus placebo.
 

Some improvements seen

However, the semaglutide group had significantly greater improvements in liver steatosis (but not stiffness), liver fat volume, procollagen 3 peptide, and liver enzymes such as ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyltransferase.

Body weight decreased by 8.83% in the semaglutide group, compared with 0.09% in the placebo group, which was a significant difference. BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, and VLDL cholesterol were also significantly lower in the semaglutide group, but total cholesterol and blood pressure measurements weren’t significantly different. Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c also decreased in the semaglutide group but did not in the placebo group.

Similar proportions of patients in each group reported adverse events. In the semaglutide group, 42 patients (89%) had an adverse event, compared with 19 patients (79%) in the placebo group. In addition, six patients (13%) in the semaglutide group and two patients (8%) in the placebo group reported serious adverse events.

The most common adverse events in the semaglutide and placebo groups were nausea (45% and 17%), diarrhea (19% and 8%), and vomiting (17% and none), which mainly occurred during treatment initiation or dose escalation. No patients withdrew from the trial because of adverse events, although five had a dose reduction. Hepatic and renal function remained stable after semaglutide treatment, and there were no decompensating events or deaths.

“GLP-1 analogue exposure – among patients with compensated cirrhosis who suffer from morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes – for the treatment of diabetes appears to be well-tolerated and may be safe,” Dr. Loomba said. “Further studies are needed in this study population.”
 

Considering next steps

Dr. Loomba and colleagues are continuing research around risk factors linked to advanced fibrosis, such as type 2 diabetes, a family history of cirrhosis, and the presence of key genetic risk alleles. Gut dysbiosis also appears to increase the risk for advanced fatty liver disease, he said.

Future clinical trials could focus on therapeutic options for patients with advanced fibrosis, particularly those with cirrhosis who face increased risks for liver-related complications and mortality.

“As these patients are oftentimes excluded from initial randomized controlled trials, we have significantly less information on how to address obesity, type 2 diabetes, and NASH in these patients,” Fernando Bril, MD, a physician-scientist focused on NASH-related research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Dr. Bril, who wasn’t involved with this study, wrote an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Patients with NASH-related cirrhosis may have progressed to a point of the disease where fibrosis regression may be more difficult to achieve, he said.

“This emphasizes that early diagnosis of patients with NASH is crucial,” he said.

“Therefore, primary care providers, endocrinologists, and diabetologists need to have a low threshold to suspect liver disease in patients with overweight, obesity, and/or type 2 diabetes. Only this will allow for early initiation of therapy, which may delay the progression of liver disease.”

In further research, investigators may want to consider the lack of NASH resolution, a result that could be caused by this study being underpowered, Dr. Bril noted. The trend in resolution in this study appeared similar to improvements seen in NASH patients without cirrhosis in other studies, he said. The weight reduction and improved diabetes control in this group also shows promise.

“While a purist may be adamant that this was a negative study for histological outcomes, it is essential to take note of the positive results in many secondary outcomes,” he said. “Improving cardiometabolic risk in these patients is essential because many still die of cardiovascular disease and not liver-related complications.”

At the same time, it’s important to note that NASH can’t be oversimplified as “a matter of weight,” Dr. Bril said. Significant weight loss in the study didn’t result in histologic improvement, which means other strategies are needed to treat the disease.

“Negative results from this study emphasize that monotherapy may not be enough to improve NASH and liver fibrosis,” he said. “In a similar way we treat type 2 diabetes and hypertension with combination therapy, we need to consider a similar approach for patients with NASH.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, which manufactures semaglutide. The authors declared grant funding, speaker fees, and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bril had no relevant disclosures.

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

Semaglutide didn’t significantly improve liver fibrosis or achieve resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)–related compensated cirrhosis, compared with placebo, according to a phase 2 trial.

However, the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist led to improvements in liver enzymes, liver steatosis, weight, triglycerides, and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol. Similar proportions of patients in each group reported adverse events, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

“Previous studies in patients with NASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis have shown that semaglutide can improve NASH resolution over 72 weeks. However, there are limited data on whether any therapy is effective in patients with NASH cirrhosis,” lead author Rohit Loomba, MD, founding director of the NAFLD Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“Although semaglutide did not succeed in improving histological fibrosis, it had success in improving other clinically important parameters, such as cardiometabolic risk factors, liver enzymes, liver fat, and noninvasive biomarkers of fibrosis,” he said.

The study was published online  in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
 

Analyzing safety and efficacy

Dr. Loomba and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial that enrolled 71 patients at 38 centers in the United States and Europe between June 2019 and April 2021. Adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH-related cirrhosis and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m² were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at 2.4 mg or a visually matching placebo.

Patients were randomly allocated through an interactive web system, which stratified participants on the basis of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Patients, investigators, and outcomes analysts were masked to the treatment assignment.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an improvement in liver fibrosis of one stage or more without a worsening of NASH after 48 weeks, which was measured through biopsy in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of semaglutide.

Among the 71 patients, 47 were randomly assigned to the semaglutide group and 24 to the placebo group. About 90% completed treatment, and 63 had evaluable paired biopsies for primary endpoint assessment.

Between the groups, 49 participants (69%) were women and 22 were men. The average age was 59.5 years, and the average BMI was 34.9. About 75% of patients had diabetes at baseline, with an average hemoglobin A1c of 7.1%.

After 48 weeks, researchers found no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion of patients with an improvement in liver fibrosis of one stage or more without worsening of NASH. In the semaglutide group, five patients (11%) had an improvement, compared with seven patients (29%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-1.24, P = .087).

There also wasn’t a significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients who achieved NASH resolution. In the semaglutide group, 16 patients (34%) had resolution, compared with 5 patients (21%) in the placebo group (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.56-7.91; P = .29).

In addition, a lower proportion of patients achieved both NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis with semaglutide versus placebo, although the difference wasn’t significant. In the semaglutide group, three patients (6%) achieved both, compared with three patients (13%) in the placebo group (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.06-3.91; P = .4). A lower proportion of patients had an improvement in liver fibrosis stage with semaglutide versus placebo.
 

Some improvements seen

However, the semaglutide group had significantly greater improvements in liver steatosis (but not stiffness), liver fat volume, procollagen 3 peptide, and liver enzymes such as ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyltransferase.

Body weight decreased by 8.83% in the semaglutide group, compared with 0.09% in the placebo group, which was a significant difference. BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, and VLDL cholesterol were also significantly lower in the semaglutide group, but total cholesterol and blood pressure measurements weren’t significantly different. Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c also decreased in the semaglutide group but did not in the placebo group.

Similar proportions of patients in each group reported adverse events. In the semaglutide group, 42 patients (89%) had an adverse event, compared with 19 patients (79%) in the placebo group. In addition, six patients (13%) in the semaglutide group and two patients (8%) in the placebo group reported serious adverse events.

The most common adverse events in the semaglutide and placebo groups were nausea (45% and 17%), diarrhea (19% and 8%), and vomiting (17% and none), which mainly occurred during treatment initiation or dose escalation. No patients withdrew from the trial because of adverse events, although five had a dose reduction. Hepatic and renal function remained stable after semaglutide treatment, and there were no decompensating events or deaths.

“GLP-1 analogue exposure – among patients with compensated cirrhosis who suffer from morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes – for the treatment of diabetes appears to be well-tolerated and may be safe,” Dr. Loomba said. “Further studies are needed in this study population.”
 

Considering next steps

Dr. Loomba and colleagues are continuing research around risk factors linked to advanced fibrosis, such as type 2 diabetes, a family history of cirrhosis, and the presence of key genetic risk alleles. Gut dysbiosis also appears to increase the risk for advanced fatty liver disease, he said.

Future clinical trials could focus on therapeutic options for patients with advanced fibrosis, particularly those with cirrhosis who face increased risks for liver-related complications and mortality.

“As these patients are oftentimes excluded from initial randomized controlled trials, we have significantly less information on how to address obesity, type 2 diabetes, and NASH in these patients,” Fernando Bril, MD, a physician-scientist focused on NASH-related research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Dr. Bril, who wasn’t involved with this study, wrote an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Patients with NASH-related cirrhosis may have progressed to a point of the disease where fibrosis regression may be more difficult to achieve, he said.

“This emphasizes that early diagnosis of patients with NASH is crucial,” he said.

“Therefore, primary care providers, endocrinologists, and diabetologists need to have a low threshold to suspect liver disease in patients with overweight, obesity, and/or type 2 diabetes. Only this will allow for early initiation of therapy, which may delay the progression of liver disease.”

In further research, investigators may want to consider the lack of NASH resolution, a result that could be caused by this study being underpowered, Dr. Bril noted. The trend in resolution in this study appeared similar to improvements seen in NASH patients without cirrhosis in other studies, he said. The weight reduction and improved diabetes control in this group also shows promise.

“While a purist may be adamant that this was a negative study for histological outcomes, it is essential to take note of the positive results in many secondary outcomes,” he said. “Improving cardiometabolic risk in these patients is essential because many still die of cardiovascular disease and not liver-related complications.”

At the same time, it’s important to note that NASH can’t be oversimplified as “a matter of weight,” Dr. Bril said. Significant weight loss in the study didn’t result in histologic improvement, which means other strategies are needed to treat the disease.

“Negative results from this study emphasize that monotherapy may not be enough to improve NASH and liver fibrosis,” he said. “In a similar way we treat type 2 diabetes and hypertension with combination therapy, we need to consider a similar approach for patients with NASH.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, which manufactures semaglutide. The authors declared grant funding, speaker fees, and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bril had no relevant disclosures.

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

Semaglutide didn’t significantly improve liver fibrosis or achieve resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)–related compensated cirrhosis, compared with placebo, according to a phase 2 trial.

However, the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist led to improvements in liver enzymes, liver steatosis, weight, triglycerides, and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol. Similar proportions of patients in each group reported adverse events, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

“Previous studies in patients with NASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis have shown that semaglutide can improve NASH resolution over 72 weeks. However, there are limited data on whether any therapy is effective in patients with NASH cirrhosis,” lead author Rohit Loomba, MD, founding director of the NAFLD Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“Although semaglutide did not succeed in improving histological fibrosis, it had success in improving other clinically important parameters, such as cardiometabolic risk factors, liver enzymes, liver fat, and noninvasive biomarkers of fibrosis,” he said.

The study was published online  in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
 

Analyzing safety and efficacy

Dr. Loomba and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial that enrolled 71 patients at 38 centers in the United States and Europe between June 2019 and April 2021. Adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH-related cirrhosis and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m² were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at 2.4 mg or a visually matching placebo.

Patients were randomly allocated through an interactive web system, which stratified participants on the basis of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Patients, investigators, and outcomes analysts were masked to the treatment assignment.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an improvement in liver fibrosis of one stage or more without a worsening of NASH after 48 weeks, which was measured through biopsy in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of semaglutide.

Among the 71 patients, 47 were randomly assigned to the semaglutide group and 24 to the placebo group. About 90% completed treatment, and 63 had evaluable paired biopsies for primary endpoint assessment.

Between the groups, 49 participants (69%) were women and 22 were men. The average age was 59.5 years, and the average BMI was 34.9. About 75% of patients had diabetes at baseline, with an average hemoglobin A1c of 7.1%.

After 48 weeks, researchers found no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion of patients with an improvement in liver fibrosis of one stage or more without worsening of NASH. In the semaglutide group, five patients (11%) had an improvement, compared with seven patients (29%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-1.24, P = .087).

There also wasn’t a significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients who achieved NASH resolution. In the semaglutide group, 16 patients (34%) had resolution, compared with 5 patients (21%) in the placebo group (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.56-7.91; P = .29).

In addition, a lower proportion of patients achieved both NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis with semaglutide versus placebo, although the difference wasn’t significant. In the semaglutide group, three patients (6%) achieved both, compared with three patients (13%) in the placebo group (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.06-3.91; P = .4). A lower proportion of patients had an improvement in liver fibrosis stage with semaglutide versus placebo.
 

Some improvements seen

However, the semaglutide group had significantly greater improvements in liver steatosis (but not stiffness), liver fat volume, procollagen 3 peptide, and liver enzymes such as ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyltransferase.

Body weight decreased by 8.83% in the semaglutide group, compared with 0.09% in the placebo group, which was a significant difference. BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, and VLDL cholesterol were also significantly lower in the semaglutide group, but total cholesterol and blood pressure measurements weren’t significantly different. Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c also decreased in the semaglutide group but did not in the placebo group.

Similar proportions of patients in each group reported adverse events. In the semaglutide group, 42 patients (89%) had an adverse event, compared with 19 patients (79%) in the placebo group. In addition, six patients (13%) in the semaglutide group and two patients (8%) in the placebo group reported serious adverse events.

The most common adverse events in the semaglutide and placebo groups were nausea (45% and 17%), diarrhea (19% and 8%), and vomiting (17% and none), which mainly occurred during treatment initiation or dose escalation. No patients withdrew from the trial because of adverse events, although five had a dose reduction. Hepatic and renal function remained stable after semaglutide treatment, and there were no decompensating events or deaths.

“GLP-1 analogue exposure – among patients with compensated cirrhosis who suffer from morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes – for the treatment of diabetes appears to be well-tolerated and may be safe,” Dr. Loomba said. “Further studies are needed in this study population.”
 

Considering next steps

Dr. Loomba and colleagues are continuing research around risk factors linked to advanced fibrosis, such as type 2 diabetes, a family history of cirrhosis, and the presence of key genetic risk alleles. Gut dysbiosis also appears to increase the risk for advanced fatty liver disease, he said.

Future clinical trials could focus on therapeutic options for patients with advanced fibrosis, particularly those with cirrhosis who face increased risks for liver-related complications and mortality.

“As these patients are oftentimes excluded from initial randomized controlled trials, we have significantly less information on how to address obesity, type 2 diabetes, and NASH in these patients,” Fernando Bril, MD, a physician-scientist focused on NASH-related research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Dr. Bril, who wasn’t involved with this study, wrote an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Patients with NASH-related cirrhosis may have progressed to a point of the disease where fibrosis regression may be more difficult to achieve, he said.

“This emphasizes that early diagnosis of patients with NASH is crucial,” he said.

“Therefore, primary care providers, endocrinologists, and diabetologists need to have a low threshold to suspect liver disease in patients with overweight, obesity, and/or type 2 diabetes. Only this will allow for early initiation of therapy, which may delay the progression of liver disease.”

In further research, investigators may want to consider the lack of NASH resolution, a result that could be caused by this study being underpowered, Dr. Bril noted. The trend in resolution in this study appeared similar to improvements seen in NASH patients without cirrhosis in other studies, he said. The weight reduction and improved diabetes control in this group also shows promise.

“While a purist may be adamant that this was a negative study for histological outcomes, it is essential to take note of the positive results in many secondary outcomes,” he said. “Improving cardiometabolic risk in these patients is essential because many still die of cardiovascular disease and not liver-related complications.”

At the same time, it’s important to note that NASH can’t be oversimplified as “a matter of weight,” Dr. Bril said. Significant weight loss in the study didn’t result in histologic improvement, which means other strategies are needed to treat the disease.

“Negative results from this study emphasize that monotherapy may not be enough to improve NASH and liver fibrosis,” he said. “In a similar way we treat type 2 diabetes and hypertension with combination therapy, we need to consider a similar approach for patients with NASH.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, which manufactures semaglutide. The authors declared grant funding, speaker fees, and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bril had no relevant disclosures.

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

The antipsychotic clozapine appears to guard against suicide for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, results of an autopsy study suggest.

Investigators reviewed over 53,000 autopsy records, including over 600 from individuals whose autopsies revealed the presence of the antipsychotics clozapine or olanzapine, and found that those who took clozapine were significantly less likely to have died by suicide, compared with their counterparts who were taking olanzapine.

“Clozapine is an important and effective antisuicide medicine and should be strongly considered for treatment-resistant psychotic disorders, especially when the patient may be at risk for suicide,” study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Underutilized medication

Clozapine is the only medication indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is considered “the most efficacious antipsychotic,” the investigators note. Unfortunately, it has “long been underutilized” for several reasons, including prescriber hesitancy and concerns about side effects.

The authors note that its mechanism of action and the basis for superior efficacy are “still poorly understood” but “may extend beyond neurotransmitter receptor binding.”

Importantly, it may have a beneficial impact on domains other than positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including suicidality. Several studies have shown that it’s beneficial in this regard, but it is “unclear whether the unique antisuicidal properties of clozapine are related to better symptom control ... or to the closer monitoring and follow-up mandated for clozapine use,” they note.

A previous trial, the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT), demonstrated that clozapine is associated with a greater reduction in suicidality, and the findings “led to an FDA indication for clozapine in reducing the risk of recurrent suicidal behavior.”

However, the authors note, “in the severely ill populations in these studies, it is difficult to be certain about patients’ adherence to prescribed clozapine.”

“Other studies, such as InterSePT, have shown some evidence of clozapine working to reduce suicide-related outcomes, such as attempts or suicidal ideation, but few have been sufficiently powered to measure an effect on actual suicide deaths,” said Dr. Nestadt.

‘Untapped resource’

Of 53,133 decedents, olanzapine or clozapine was detected in the blood of 621 persons (n = 571 and n = 50, respectively).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, or urban residence between the decedents who were treated with olanzapine and those who received clozapine.

The odds of a death by suicide in those treated with clozapine were less than half of the odds among decedents who had been treated with olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P = .011).

In sensitivity analyses, the investigators reanalyzed the data to compare clozapine with other antipsychotics, including chlorpromazine, thioridazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine, and the results were similar. The odds of suicide (compared with accident) in those taking clozapine were much lower than in those taking any other tested antipsychotics individually or in combination (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P = .002).

Dr. Nestadt outlined several hypotheses regarding the mechanism of clozapine’s antisuicidal properties.

“Most theories stem from the differences in its receptor affinity, compared [with] the other neuroleptics,” he said. “In addition to the more typical dopaminergic blockade seen in neuroleptics, clozapine enhances serotonin release and greatly increases peripheral norepinephrine.”

This has been shown to “grant clozapine a greater antidepressant effect than other neuroleptics while also potentially decreasing aggression and impulsivity, which are both strongly associated with suicide risk,” he said.

Clozapine may also “work to reduce the inflammation-triggered activation of the kynurenine pathway, which otherwise contributes to serotonin depletion,” he added.

He noted that some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia die by suicide, “so addressing this risk is paramount,” and that clozapine can play an important role in this.

The authors note that the findings “also highlight the utility of state-wide autopsy records, an untapped resource for investigating the potential protective effect of psychiatric medications on suicide at a population level.

“Importantly, we can be certain that this was not an issue of nonadherence to treatment in either group, which is a common issue in the use of these drugs because, instead of prescription records or self-report, we used actual measurements of drug presence in decedents’ blood at death,” said Dr. Nestadt.
 

‘Strongly suggestive’ data

Commenting on the study, Maria Oquendo, MD, PhD, Ruth Meltzer Professor and chair of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said most work on antisuicidal psychopharmacologic approaches “focuses on suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, due to the rarity of suicide death, even in high-risk populations.”

“Showing that clozapine may decrease risk for the most dreaded outcome of schizophrenia – suicide – is critically important,” said Dr. Oquendo, past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Nevertheless, some questions remain, said Dr. Oquendo, who was not involved with the study. “Comparison of suicides to only accidental deaths has limitations. Many individuals who die due to accidents, like many suicides, are not similar to the general population,” she added.

However, she acknowledged, the data are strongly suggestive that clozapine protects against suicide.

“While not definitive, ideally these findings will stimulate changes in prescribing practices which may be lifesaving both literally – in terms of preventing suicides – and figuratively, given the drug’s effect on symptoms that impact quality of life and functioning,” said Dr. Oquendo.

The study received no funding or support. Dr. Nestadt is supported by the American Foundation for Suicide prevention and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Oquendo receives royalties from the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene for the commercial use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. She serves as an advisor to Alkermes, Mind Medicine, Sage Therapeutics, St. George’s University, and Fundacion Jimenez Diaz. Her family owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The antipsychotic clozapine appears to guard against suicide for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, results of an autopsy study suggest.

Investigators reviewed over 53,000 autopsy records, including over 600 from individuals whose autopsies revealed the presence of the antipsychotics clozapine or olanzapine, and found that those who took clozapine were significantly less likely to have died by suicide, compared with their counterparts who were taking olanzapine.

“Clozapine is an important and effective antisuicide medicine and should be strongly considered for treatment-resistant psychotic disorders, especially when the patient may be at risk for suicide,” study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Underutilized medication

Clozapine is the only medication indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is considered “the most efficacious antipsychotic,” the investigators note. Unfortunately, it has “long been underutilized” for several reasons, including prescriber hesitancy and concerns about side effects.

The authors note that its mechanism of action and the basis for superior efficacy are “still poorly understood” but “may extend beyond neurotransmitter receptor binding.”

Importantly, it may have a beneficial impact on domains other than positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including suicidality. Several studies have shown that it’s beneficial in this regard, but it is “unclear whether the unique antisuicidal properties of clozapine are related to better symptom control ... or to the closer monitoring and follow-up mandated for clozapine use,” they note.

A previous trial, the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT), demonstrated that clozapine is associated with a greater reduction in suicidality, and the findings “led to an FDA indication for clozapine in reducing the risk of recurrent suicidal behavior.”

However, the authors note, “in the severely ill populations in these studies, it is difficult to be certain about patients’ adherence to prescribed clozapine.”

“Other studies, such as InterSePT, have shown some evidence of clozapine working to reduce suicide-related outcomes, such as attempts or suicidal ideation, but few have been sufficiently powered to measure an effect on actual suicide deaths,” said Dr. Nestadt.

‘Untapped resource’

Of 53,133 decedents, olanzapine or clozapine was detected in the blood of 621 persons (n = 571 and n = 50, respectively).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, or urban residence between the decedents who were treated with olanzapine and those who received clozapine.

The odds of a death by suicide in those treated with clozapine were less than half of the odds among decedents who had been treated with olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P = .011).

In sensitivity analyses, the investigators reanalyzed the data to compare clozapine with other antipsychotics, including chlorpromazine, thioridazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine, and the results were similar. The odds of suicide (compared with accident) in those taking clozapine were much lower than in those taking any other tested antipsychotics individually or in combination (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P = .002).

Dr. Nestadt outlined several hypotheses regarding the mechanism of clozapine’s antisuicidal properties.

“Most theories stem from the differences in its receptor affinity, compared [with] the other neuroleptics,” he said. “In addition to the more typical dopaminergic blockade seen in neuroleptics, clozapine enhances serotonin release and greatly increases peripheral norepinephrine.”

This has been shown to “grant clozapine a greater antidepressant effect than other neuroleptics while also potentially decreasing aggression and impulsivity, which are both strongly associated with suicide risk,” he said.

Clozapine may also “work to reduce the inflammation-triggered activation of the kynurenine pathway, which otherwise contributes to serotonin depletion,” he added.

He noted that some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia die by suicide, “so addressing this risk is paramount,” and that clozapine can play an important role in this.

The authors note that the findings “also highlight the utility of state-wide autopsy records, an untapped resource for investigating the potential protective effect of psychiatric medications on suicide at a population level.

“Importantly, we can be certain that this was not an issue of nonadherence to treatment in either group, which is a common issue in the use of these drugs because, instead of prescription records or self-report, we used actual measurements of drug presence in decedents’ blood at death,” said Dr. Nestadt.
 

‘Strongly suggestive’ data

Commenting on the study, Maria Oquendo, MD, PhD, Ruth Meltzer Professor and chair of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said most work on antisuicidal psychopharmacologic approaches “focuses on suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, due to the rarity of suicide death, even in high-risk populations.”

“Showing that clozapine may decrease risk for the most dreaded outcome of schizophrenia – suicide – is critically important,” said Dr. Oquendo, past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Nevertheless, some questions remain, said Dr. Oquendo, who was not involved with the study. “Comparison of suicides to only accidental deaths has limitations. Many individuals who die due to accidents, like many suicides, are not similar to the general population,” she added.

However, she acknowledged, the data are strongly suggestive that clozapine protects against suicide.

“While not definitive, ideally these findings will stimulate changes in prescribing practices which may be lifesaving both literally – in terms of preventing suicides – and figuratively, given the drug’s effect on symptoms that impact quality of life and functioning,” said Dr. Oquendo.

The study received no funding or support. Dr. Nestadt is supported by the American Foundation for Suicide prevention and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Oquendo receives royalties from the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene for the commercial use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. She serves as an advisor to Alkermes, Mind Medicine, Sage Therapeutics, St. George’s University, and Fundacion Jimenez Diaz. Her family owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The antipsychotic clozapine appears to guard against suicide for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, results of an autopsy study suggest.

Investigators reviewed over 53,000 autopsy records, including over 600 from individuals whose autopsies revealed the presence of the antipsychotics clozapine or olanzapine, and found that those who took clozapine were significantly less likely to have died by suicide, compared with their counterparts who were taking olanzapine.

“Clozapine is an important and effective antisuicide medicine and should be strongly considered for treatment-resistant psychotic disorders, especially when the patient may be at risk for suicide,” study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Underutilized medication

Clozapine is the only medication indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is considered “the most efficacious antipsychotic,” the investigators note. Unfortunately, it has “long been underutilized” for several reasons, including prescriber hesitancy and concerns about side effects.

The authors note that its mechanism of action and the basis for superior efficacy are “still poorly understood” but “may extend beyond neurotransmitter receptor binding.”

Importantly, it may have a beneficial impact on domains other than positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including suicidality. Several studies have shown that it’s beneficial in this regard, but it is “unclear whether the unique antisuicidal properties of clozapine are related to better symptom control ... or to the closer monitoring and follow-up mandated for clozapine use,” they note.

A previous trial, the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT), demonstrated that clozapine is associated with a greater reduction in suicidality, and the findings “led to an FDA indication for clozapine in reducing the risk of recurrent suicidal behavior.”

However, the authors note, “in the severely ill populations in these studies, it is difficult to be certain about patients’ adherence to prescribed clozapine.”

“Other studies, such as InterSePT, have shown some evidence of clozapine working to reduce suicide-related outcomes, such as attempts or suicidal ideation, but few have been sufficiently powered to measure an effect on actual suicide deaths,” said Dr. Nestadt.

‘Untapped resource’

Of 53,133 decedents, olanzapine or clozapine was detected in the blood of 621 persons (n = 571 and n = 50, respectively).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, or urban residence between the decedents who were treated with olanzapine and those who received clozapine.

The odds of a death by suicide in those treated with clozapine were less than half of the odds among decedents who had been treated with olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P = .011).

In sensitivity analyses, the investigators reanalyzed the data to compare clozapine with other antipsychotics, including chlorpromazine, thioridazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine, and the results were similar. The odds of suicide (compared with accident) in those taking clozapine were much lower than in those taking any other tested antipsychotics individually or in combination (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P = .002).

Dr. Nestadt outlined several hypotheses regarding the mechanism of clozapine’s antisuicidal properties.

“Most theories stem from the differences in its receptor affinity, compared [with] the other neuroleptics,” he said. “In addition to the more typical dopaminergic blockade seen in neuroleptics, clozapine enhances serotonin release and greatly increases peripheral norepinephrine.”

This has been shown to “grant clozapine a greater antidepressant effect than other neuroleptics while also potentially decreasing aggression and impulsivity, which are both strongly associated with suicide risk,” he said.

Clozapine may also “work to reduce the inflammation-triggered activation of the kynurenine pathway, which otherwise contributes to serotonin depletion,” he added.

He noted that some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia die by suicide, “so addressing this risk is paramount,” and that clozapine can play an important role in this.

The authors note that the findings “also highlight the utility of state-wide autopsy records, an untapped resource for investigating the potential protective effect of psychiatric medications on suicide at a population level.

“Importantly, we can be certain that this was not an issue of nonadherence to treatment in either group, which is a common issue in the use of these drugs because, instead of prescription records or self-report, we used actual measurements of drug presence in decedents’ blood at death,” said Dr. Nestadt.
 

‘Strongly suggestive’ data

Commenting on the study, Maria Oquendo, MD, PhD, Ruth Meltzer Professor and chair of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said most work on antisuicidal psychopharmacologic approaches “focuses on suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, due to the rarity of suicide death, even in high-risk populations.”

“Showing that clozapine may decrease risk for the most dreaded outcome of schizophrenia – suicide – is critically important,” said Dr. Oquendo, past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Nevertheless, some questions remain, said Dr. Oquendo, who was not involved with the study. “Comparison of suicides to only accidental deaths has limitations. Many individuals who die due to accidents, like many suicides, are not similar to the general population,” she added.

However, she acknowledged, the data are strongly suggestive that clozapine protects against suicide.

“While not definitive, ideally these findings will stimulate changes in prescribing practices which may be lifesaving both literally – in terms of preventing suicides – and figuratively, given the drug’s effect on symptoms that impact quality of life and functioning,” said Dr. Oquendo.

The study received no funding or support. Dr. Nestadt is supported by the American Foundation for Suicide prevention and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Oquendo receives royalties from the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene for the commercial use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. She serves as an advisor to Alkermes, Mind Medicine, Sage Therapeutics, St. George’s University, and Fundacion Jimenez Diaz. Her family owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.