Pharmacology

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of overdose deaths involving methadone decreased after the implementation of an early-pandemic policy that allowed some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to take methadone at home, new research shows.

Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.

“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An essential tool

Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.

In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.

To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.

Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.

The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.

Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.

Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.

That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.

“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.

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

The number of overdose deaths involving methadone decreased after the implementation of an early-pandemic policy that allowed some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to take methadone at home, new research shows.

Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.

“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An essential tool

Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.

In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.

To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.

Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.

The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.

Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.

Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.

That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.

“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.

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

The number of overdose deaths involving methadone decreased after the implementation of an early-pandemic policy that allowed some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to take methadone at home, new research shows.

Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.

“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An essential tool

Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.

In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.

To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.

Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.

The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.

Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.

Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.

That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.

“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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